Re: The GM: Is help a budding GM

From: mmmark@my-deja.com

Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000

In article <8cp1e441f2j@news2.newsguy.com>,
  lindahl@rt.com (Greg Lindahl) wrote:
> mmmark@my-deja.com writes:
>
> > Gregory avoids the specific question:
>
> You avoided mine, so shut up.

The debating style is getting there Gregory :)

Your question came after mine as an attempt to avoid answering it. It
was a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type question designed not
to be answered so you'd have an excuse for ignoring my question.

So - I'll answer it and then you can answer mine and end up looking
stupid or ignore it and look stupid.

Actually you didn't even ask a question - you simply said it should be
easy for me to explain the tests that would show a sample of 100 to be
insignificant. I asked you what you would consider to be a significant
sample.

So in answer to your non-question: Yes, I could explain simple tests
that would show a sample of 100 to be insignificant. Those tests would
need to be combined with inappropriate assumptions about the
size of the relevent literature and the distribution of the IDA papers.
Rather than contest the specifics of those assumptions I ask again - how
large a sample would you accept as significant? I'm sure than no matter
how ridiculously oversized the sample you select the answer will be the
same - namely that IDA papers constitute a minute fraction of the
statistics literature. I have access to an extremely comprehensive
electronic database so let's go  :)

Just to remind you: the question was -
"Gregory - if there is no record of any IDA paper _ever_ being published
in one of the top twenty international statistics journals (as ranked by
the international BIDS grading scheme) would you concede that not
knowing what IDA stood for would not mean that I didn't learn much on my
phd? Just establishing some boundaries here. :)"

Strangely I spent much of last week with a man whose worked in the
American defence industry for the last 35 years. He had heard of IDA and
told me it is a private, though wholly government funded, organisation
employing around 1000 people. Now even if all of those 1000 were
research scientists they'd still only amount to a few percent of the
research scientists in the US defence business. Then you lob in all the
university scientists... and then all the scientists from defence and
universities and industry from the entire world and you'll see why IDA
papers constitute a vanishingly small fraction of the contents of
statistics journals. So - purely in the interest of bringing around the
historic 'first time Gregory admits he was wrong' event - how large a
sample would it take for you to admit that not having memorised the
acronym IDA does not mean I didn't learn much during my Phd?  :)

> > Do you consider yourself to be an arrogant man Gregory?
>
> At times. Now I'm sure you'll insult me for a dozen postings for
> behing honest.

No - I'll criticise you for being a hypocrit. I didn't call you arrogant
- but after you called me arrogant in a whole series of posts we now
come to the situation where you admit that you're arrogant.

Not long ago you made inappropriate use of the phrase 'pot-kettle-black'
and now here we are with an ideal opportunity to put it to its correct
use  :)

And now the funny bit - You're slagging me off for being arrogant... I'M
COPYING YOU GREGORY!  :)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

References

Re: The GM: Is help a budding GM
mmmark@my-deja.com
Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The GM: Is help a budding GM
lindahl@rt.com (Greg Lindahl)
Sun, 09 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: The GM: Is help a budding GM
mmmark@my-deja.com
Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The GM: Is help a budding GM
lindahl@rt.com (Greg Lindahl)
Sun, 09 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000