Search results

Alright, and what does this have to do with you?

Why is it a wonder? If none of the people for whom a position is ideal manage to achieve it, then who is filling those positions?

I'm sorry, have we met?

I'm certainly unsure.

Yes, the feeling of trying to remember a dream is a good analogy for retracing a train of thought. I can sometimes become irrationally frustrated at not being able to.

Again it's dilution, not degradation. All the quality information that existed still exists today, as do the quality researchers who know how to find it. The internet is a tool that makes their job easier when used properly, as well as making it more accessible to amateurs who would not...

Yes, but your description of it is more specific than what I meant when I said my response was the same. I didn't feel like repeating myself, and had hoped that you would be able to recognize what I meant. But since I apparently need to be explicit, here you go: The key words are: must versus...

First of all, you're essentially repeating the same argument that I just responded to. The other problem is that there is often a huge difference between liking a subject and liking its practice. This is particularly true in the sports example: planning strategy or analyzing how it unfolds...

No, you moved your own goal posts, and he responded accordingly: Your point went from fashion to anything, and he provided an example of a more obviously valid generalization to counter to the latter.

Asking for evidence isn't the same as claiming lack of evidence as evidence. Your point would be much more applicable if we were coming from the opposite direction, i.e. pegging someone as a type that enjoys a certain job because it happens to be the job they have. But on the other side...

But being underweight is a symptom of anorexia, not a prerequisite.

This subjective truth BS is getting tiresome. If I must take on faith that your perspective is conclusive, then so must you. When you find that your conclusion is starkly at odds with a large body of others, the non-arrogant response would be to reevaluate. Correct. This means the...

Yes. But where did I say "a larger number of students have less understanding"? I was talking about dilution of the group versus degradation of the individual. You say you contest my point, but the statement that follows doesn't contradict it. As I said, the average quality is lowered...

This is exactly the point. It's someone else's anecdotal supposition versus your anecdotal supposition. Yet instead of recognizing these as equally worthless, you were explicitly elevating yourself above the rest. And don't forget that this is a worst-case scenario wherein only one person in the...

You're seeing dilution, not degradation. Easier access to information makes research a more common activity, lowering the average quality of research but not the quantity of high quality research.

What does that look like, when the building is clean?

What do you mean?

See post #59. No one's imposing rigorous standards. But I do expect an individual to fairly apply his own standards to himself and others.

So... we can troll again?

You still have not defined any criteria that can be applied to both sets, consistently / without contradicting yourself, and result in one being 0 and the other being 1. Even if we assume that persons B through Z are all parroting information from person A, there is still the single data...

it's literally ironic how often I randomly use epic words, I'm such a nerd

1 & 2. Actually, yes, he did: "Empirical Internet references are equivalent to a null set". 3. It was not presented as a divergent data point. He was comparing his data against others' data as two distinct sets, and declaring his the more reliable source. In nearly every one of his posts...

I don't think you've answered my question. I just see more of the recurring theme of sarcastic dismissal of anything related to the internet, and arrogant faith in preconception. I'm asking how your data can be factored in while Jennywocky's can't. Your criteria is vague and you appear to be...

It's not a question of whether anyone was being scientifically precise. Your whole argument was based on hypocrisy. Namely, how did you conclude samples sizes of 1 and 0, as opposed to 0 and 0?

Yes it is.

The logical/mathematical statement "I have 2 widgets because I had 1 widget and added 1" depends on humans agreeing on what a widget is, how many there were, and what it means to add. But math and logic are not dependent on any of that. To think through a logical process doesn't require any...

Well, three of your four solutions involve someone else.

He's not looking for a cultured woman. He's looking for a fat ugly sexually confused binge smoking alcoholic with intellectual pursuits.

:confused: If one were not aware of the possibility of being incorrect, one would not call it supposition in the first place.

Then why are you using dating websites?

I get the point, but I'm not convinced it's true. Your figure is nowhere near actual probability, and I don't see how you think distributing the supply will help.

The 20 million figure is irrelevant; I'm asking about the ratio: 1 in 2 million. What is this based on?

Didn't you just get over this a few days ago?

Where does this figure come from?

If your argument is that women are more valuable because more men could theoretically be disposed of without disrupting the progress of reproduction, then you need to balance that against the disposal of postmenopausal women. The result is a reduction of the amount of both men and women existing...

The confusion here all stems from the fact that you assumed my "escalated" comment was in reference to the discussion as a whole, when I was actually specifically contrasting your two statements. In my eyes, you said something as a joke, and in your next post repeated it as a serious argument...

So you are committing to the fact that your second comment was, indeed, referring to the same thing as the first (the assumption that he is intending to apply any of the advice). In other words, the two statements I quoted were directly related; if that is so, then what exactly is the "context"...

No I didn't. I interpreted it to mean tongue-in-cheek. Read my post again.

First of all, he admitted no such thing. He admitted he skimmed the thread, under the assumption that you were referring to something he missed that would have clarified the actual purpose. But we both know you were only referring to your own pedantic interpretation of the thread title, and...

It's not over-analysis, the connection is obvious. You're the one pretending there is additional "context" that somehow justifies your accusation, yet you continue to be vague about it. So tell us: What, precisely, was BG's assumption about the purpose of the thread that was wrong?

The "assumption about the purpose of this thread" was in reference to the first quote, which is why I isolated them. Any alleged hypocritical nonsense by other parties is tangential to the fact that you escalated a tongue-in-cheek criticism (complete with wink smiley) to an ostensibly serious...

That escalated quickly. Pretty much. Knock it off, Hawkeye.

Shouldn't you be asking how you misrepresented yourself to make Base groove think you aren't learning instead of telling him to stop being wrong, you insufferable tosspot?

Maybe you have been mistyping people again.

They aren't, it isn't, they won't.

There's nothing grammatically incorrect about that.

That discussion is about two different perceptions, but we don't know which is more accurate. At least two of us were suspicious: Bandwidth isn't the only factor. There is also pre-processing time. Text provides more time to convert the source data into externally readable information than...

I think we both agree but we're just categorizing differently. I'm saying thery're all unhealthy if they're all subtypes of an unhealthy type, you're saying some are healthy if they're a separate type. I'm not sure if Cog is saying the three types represent all men... if so then I disagree...

He's actually lumping both as subtypes of the first category, which was defined as "measuring their self worth by how often they have sex". Winner is cocky, loser is unsatisfied and intent on becoming the winner, non-competitor is unsatisfied and trying to distract himself from his...

Did you see that ludicrous display last night?