Re: this is the time to pray

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:01:43 GMT

Alex McDonald wrote:
> I'm fascinated by your analysis (trimmed for space) although I
> believe it to be flawed for a number of reasons.

Yeah, you would...you always do...I'm tired of even listening to you now,
to be honest...

Case in point here; You "believe it to be flawed for a number of reasons"
but write an entire post containing NO REASON whatsoever beyond "this isn't
the standard argument"...which is, at best, a social "faux pas" or
something but hardly any kind of "crime", not to be debating by
reguritating a textbook or two...

Nice FUD...you is the "alpha male" and everything...great...everybody's
_still_ not in the slightest bit interested...why do you persist in this
continual nonsense?

[ You can check up that probability thing, if you like...it's a well known
property in statistics...similar, if you like, to how you don't check for
equality with floating-point numbers (e.g. "if (a==1.0)") but check for a
"range" (e.g. "if (a>0.9 && a<1.1)" or whatever)...except this isn't to do
with precision, this time...it's to do with any point conceptually having a
probability of zero (that is, probability is "number of events / number of
total events"...this is 1 event of interest in a conceptual "infinity" of
possibilities..."1/infinity" comes out, in this instance - doing the
maths - as zero in practice...hence, to counter this, you calculate a
_range_ - integrate your graph - to get any kind of meaningful probability
out of your calculations)...you ask "what if I'm exactly 2m tall?"...well,
that's the point...statistics states the probability of being _EXACTLY_
(not even a micrometre either direction) 2m tall is zero...find this
"unintuitive" or something? Well, go complain to statisticians, not
me...because you'd only be shooting the messenger... ]

Can I ask what is your main problem here? Because we could have an entire
thread - many threads - completely full of people stating "technical
inaccuracy" or, as we've seen, denying evolution on "distorted
science"...not a peep...you don't say anything because they are not listed
on your "hit list"...I make a post that states about "Planck length" - a
fact from physics - and "probability of a point in a continuous
distribution is zero" - a fact from statistics - and, despite not really
having anything to say at all but "that's not a standard way to make the
argument", I'm on the "hit list" so you've got to somehow invent an
"attack"...basically, are you mentally diseased and what on Earth justified
my original inclusion on this strange "obsessed hit list" thing you've got
going?

Well, it's a comfort, actually...everyone and their donkey seems obsessed -
derangely so - with attacking my every post (while continuously ignoring
everyone else's, no matter how absurd the claim or argument)...even when
there isn't really anything significant to attack...

I must be doing something right somewhere to gather this constant "bully"
treatment from a range of socially inept and highly insecure people
throughout the newsgroup...you've moved too early, the gambit is exposed,
counter-measures are now in force...you've failed...and now we see the
wisdom: Here's my other cheek...feel free to strike it too...but you won't
get a rise out of me at all...you've failed in your mission...you can't
"infect" me with your problems by trying to throw them at me...now they are
yours alone...

Beth :)