Danny Baker

[Ed209]

Not with there being X number of cases detected within this year it's not.

If there's 1000 cases of cancer this year, there's ONLY 1000 cases. If Baker is one of those cases, then it means that another is free of cancer because Baker has that person's place.

It was a weak angle for me to take to try and explain my original point because it didn't help people grasp my original point any better (and you've clearly still not got it now ), but the angle I took holds true.

I only took that angle because of the stupid interpretation some took of my original comment. All I've learned from this is how pointless it is arguing with the stupid who are determined to remain stupid.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

The number is not known in advance. Therefore no one can "take the place" of someone else.

I'm well aware of that.

It was an attempt at explaining my initial comment. The fact that people like you won't let go of that medical fact to see what I'm actually saying is where your problem in understanding what I was on about is.

[ampersand]

I'm well aware of that.

It was an attempt at explaining my initial comment. The fact that people like you won't let go of that medical fact to see what I'm actually saying is where your problem in understanding what I was on about is.

[eFestivals]

Yes, you could say a mythical land where a predetermined and fixed number of people get cancer each year, was indeed a weak angle to come from. You could also say it was a f**king stupid angle to come from.

But, no ... everyone else are the stupid ones

Far more stupid - particularly as it's not what I've said (tho it didn't stop plenty taking it that way :rolleyes) or meant - would have been me saying "I'm glad Baker has cancer, full stop".

I said "If someone has to have cancer, I can't think of a better recipient than Baker". Which is saying "if there has to be one recipient, I'd prefer it was Baker".

If you can't get my meaning, yes, you ARE stupid.

[Ed209]

I got your meaning, and when people took it the way they did you followed into the statistical discussion head first, and started talking about statistical certainties, averaging out, cumulative statistics, and a make-believe land of fixed cancer rates, and drowned in a pile of your own shit.

Its there for everyone to read, Neil.

[sifi]

and drowned in a pile of your own shit.

[Ed209]

Which is ironic because when on chemo, that's one if the things that happens.

[eFestivals]

I got your meaning, and when people took it the way they did you followed into the statistical discussion head first, and started talking about statistical certainties, averaging out, cumulative statistics, and a make-believe land of fixed cancer rates, and drowned in a pile of your own shit.

Its there for everyone to read, Neil.

Putting aside the lack of medical accuracy that statistical working has, was my approach to the actual statistics correct? Yep.

Putting aside the lack of medical accuracy that statistical working has, does that statistical working match up with the idea behind my initial statement? Yep.

So the only people seeing shit are those too stupid to follow concepts.

Never mind, you'll get over it.

[sifi]

i'm aware, cancer is prevelent in my family.

the irony was unintentional

[Ed209]

Putting aside the lack of medical accuracy that statistical working has, was my approach to the actual statistics correct? Yep.

Putting aside the lack of medical accuracy that statistical working has, does that statistical working match up with the idea behind my initial statement? Yep.

So the only people seeing shit are those too stupid to follow concepts.

Never mind, you'll get over it.

[eFestivals]

applying the correct statistics to a totally irrelevant, incorrect and absurd model doesn't make us stupid, it makes you stupid for doing it in the first place.

It's an 'absurd model' to prefer a particular person had it over others of more worth to me, is it? I don't think so!

[Ed209]

It's an 'absurd model' to prefer a particular person had it over others of more worth to me, is it? I don't think so!

Edited November 4, 2010 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

yes, that is absurd, because that's not how the mechanism works.

No more absurd than someone who can't afford one wishing for a Ferrari.

You can wish your loved ones don't get it, and you could wish (although why would anyone want to) that someone else gets it. You can not wish that someone gets it over someone else. That is absurd. And so we are back to the beginning again and I am leaving

Absurb or not, I wished it, and I meant it exactly as I wished it.

There is nothing evil within that wish which deserves any venom at all.

[windy_miller]

Putting aside the lack of medical accuracy that statistical working has, was my approach to the actual statistics correct? Yep.

[eFestivals]

No Neil, it was not.

Yes it was.

[ampersand]

No Neil, it was not.

[bunique]

Neil is greeneyes and I claim my five pounds.

[windy_miller]

Yes it was.

[eFestivals]

Pretty much every single person in this thread has rubbished your absolutely absurd use of statistics. I will say no more on the matter.

No, they've only pointed out that they're not medically accurate (which I've admitted is the case anyway; they were never meant to be medically accurate, they were meant to try and illustrate the meaning of my initial words).

The actual method and application of the stats with the medical inaccuracy put aside was spot on, and was 100% applicable to the initial words I'd said.

You're more than welcome to think that angle as absurd - that's your right to your opinion of something which has no certainty.

You're not welcome to say I've worked the stats wrongly, because the only thing wrong there is your statement in regard to that certainty.

[dakyras]

No, they've only pointed out that they're not medically accurate (which I've admitted is the case anyway; they were never meant to be medically accurate, they were meant to try and illustrate the meaning of my initial words).

The actual method and application of the stats with the medical inaccuracy put aside was spot on, and was 100% applicable to the initial words I'd said.

You're more than welcome to think that angle as absurd - that's your right to your opinion of something which has no certainty.

You're not welcome to say I've worked the stats wrongly, because the only thing wrong there is your statement in regard to that certainty.

Edited November 5, 2010 by dakyras

[Ed209]

having just re-read the thread, you actually thought you were applying a medically accurate model in pages 3-6, then somewhere around page 7 you realised you were wrong and started talking about how you never meant it as an accurate model and only in relation to your infamous comment on page 1.

queue denial and insult from Neil ...

[eFestivals]

having just re-read the thread, you actually thought you were applying a medically accurate model in pages 3-6, then somewhere around page 7 you realised you were wrong and started talking about how you never meant it as an accurate model and only in relation to your infamous comment on page 1.

queue denial and insult from Neil ...

I was always applying it to my initial statement. Anything you think different to that is down to your failure to understand what I was saying and nothing else.

Why would I try defending my initial statement (which some were attacking) with nothing related to that initial statement?

The only thing I've failed with here is to get some too-narrow minds to follow what I was putting forwards.

[Ed209]

I was always applying it to my initial statement. Anything you think different to that is down to your failure to understand what I was saying and nothing else.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

Yes, its everyone elses inability to understand which is the problem. Nothing to do with your personal inability to communicate properly rolleyes

Unlike the likes of worm I don't make claims at being the world's only perfect communicator. I might not have done as well as I could have, a fault we all have at times.

All the same, plenty of people choose to take my initial words as meaning things that they simply couldn't have ever got from my words - meaning that there's plenty of ability to misunderstand by readers here, just as there might have been on my side to be as clear as I could have been.

It certainly sounds like you were thinking it was medically accurate statistically model, which means either (a) that is actually what you meant, or (b.) your ability to communicate your point was woeful

rolleyes winking face

Well, your assumption is wrong. I know that for certain, even if you will never accept that as the case.

The simple fact is that the way I was working the stats exactly matches what I'd said in my initial statement. A smarter man than you might have managed to join up the dots between the two things - I know for sure that some managed what you failed at.

So keep up your ridiculing of me if you like, but you've certainly been dumber than some others here - a point I shall make a point of chucking back at you.

[sifi]

I though the fact Neil said "If someone has to have cancer". If. A conditional. This implies that anything after the word if is kinda hypothetical.

I've not really read much of this thread, to be honest.