Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Will, your "stats" are incredibly misleading. I don't know if joecool is telling the truth or not, but let's try not to call the kettle black when it comes to using false or misleading information to support a point.
I almost went down this road when you accused me of lying (or perhaps it was only strongly suggested, to be fair), and decided it wasn't worth it.
Maybe later tonight when I have the time I will go through and explain. Suffice to say that when you are looking at far too large a range of people, and discounting several factors that call your analysis into question.
You aren't a statistician (and neither am I), so you need to be careful when using "stats". Of course, you aren't an architect, engineer, accident investigator, photoanalyst or any of the other specialties you so gleefully opine on, either, so why should statistics get in your way?
|
I was suggesting that it is more likely that joecool is lying than it is that he was there, on that highway, on that day, at that moment, and he happens to post about it. Do you think my suggestion is so unreasonable? Reason, after all, is what most of this thread is about. I think that it's reasonable to ask questions. You think a few of my questions are not reasonable, and that's fine. No, I am not a statician. I'm not a lot of things that would help in this thread. I do my best, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
SNARF!
|
Initially, in the realm of programming languages, snarf meant to grab a large document or file and use it without the author's permission. Since the development of UNIX, the UNIX community -- since there is not the same sense of proprietary ownership as there is in the commercial computer industry because it is based on an open source idea -- uses the term to mean the acquisition of a file or set of files across a network. It is a command line resource grabber, transferring files through the HTTP, gopher, finger and FTP protocols without user interaction. (
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/snarf.html)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Ok, CSI, what exactly do you have in mind? Detecting the skid marks from his car in the satellite photos, or checking hist story against your preconceived ideas about what happened.
I can see it now: he says a plane hit the pentagon. It is clear from the photos that a plane did not hit the pentagon. Therefore, he is lying.
Do you see the flaw?
|
I can't stand CSI. The invesrtigations are usually overcomplicated and unreasonable.
There are obvious conclusions to draw from the photos take at the crash site and the highway that I can compare to his story. If, for example, he said he saw the heads of the streetlamps fall to the ground, he might be telling the truth. If he said that the plane was only 30 feet from the ground as it passed over the highway, he would be lying. I see no flaw in either of those hypothetical conclusions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tecoyah
It is time for this thread to go back to the topic it was designed for.....please dont make me close it.
|
I'm sorry. I felt that joecool's post took away from the topic of discussion and it needed to be addressed in order for people not to be distractd by it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
No, please do close it. I, as a tool of the media, fear the raising of new ideas about the Truth of September 11.
|
Comon. I love sarcasm as much as the next guy, but Tec wasn't taking sides. Besides, a tool of the media wouldn't take this story on head on like you do, they'd distract from it with a story about how well the war against the insurgency is going!
