|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My analysis wasn't that the result was bogus, but that it misrepresented the size and thus importance of the effect. A subtle but worthwhile distinction you clearly missed,
False, I did not miss the distinction. My analysis was not only was the result bogus, but your further analysis of "how bogus is it" was simply an exercise in futility. A subtle but worthwhile distinction you clearly missed.
I'm assuming because you had only the faintest idea what you were reading.
Again, I fully understood it. You need to get off your stats-highhorse buddy. You teach nerd skills that have no practical use outside of your little nerd village. No one cares that you can break down the numerical nuances within a study that means dog-shit to begin with.
Maybe if you had started out by stating this you'd be given a bit more credit
Categorically false. Your Banana-derangement syndrome would not let you do that.
But no, you had to start with your standard line which is always a variation of the same old 'zomfg i'm outraged that you said x ...' refrain.
If you read "outrage" in any of my statements, then you're dumber than I thought.
It fills me with despair for the world's youth to know that you're an educator.
|