It's official! - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tbomachines · #31 03-13-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Ok, the media is in for a profit and 1% or less is sufficient for them to call it a day.

Still I am missing the convincing factor to prove the video maker wrong.

I referred to your presentation of common sense, your personal instant response and expression, certainly didn't put any words in your mouth.

To ridicule on subjects of concern leads to the effect of looking ridiculous.

Forgive me for using the term "common sense" colloquially. Replace it with "logic" if it has you so up in arms. Jeez, give it up.

So the first 5 minutes (upon which the rest are based) being erroneous or at best least extremely vague and unsubstantiated does not make you question it one bit? You don't see how this impacts the rest of the guy's point? If A is inaccurate, B depends on A, C depends on B, etc. Then C is not going to be accurate either unless it is a fluke. Connect the dots.
Let me also refresh you on something you said just a few posts earlier.

Quote:

we need to bow in awe and accept the forwarded data as true and correct.

You don't have a background in statistics - fine...but from someone who does, I am asking you to question the logic in the guy's argument since it is not correct. You are refusing to do so and therefore committing the very thing you are accusing me of.

LaRondo · #32 03-13-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

Forgive me for using the term "common sense" colloquially. Replace it with "logic" if it has you so up in arms. Jeez, give it up.

So the first 5 minutes (upon which the rest are based) being erroneous or at best least extremely vague and unsubstantiated does not make you question it one bit? You don't see how this impacts the rest of the guy's point? If A is inaccurate, B depends on A, C depends on B, etc. Then C is not going to be accurate either unless it is a fluke. Connect the dots.
Let me also refresh you on something you said just a few posts earlier.

You don't have a background in statistics - fine...but from someone who does, I am asking you to question the logic in the guy's argument since it is not correct. You are refusing to do so and therefore committing the very thing you are accusing me of.

Your argument gets sillier with every time.

Who says I am not questioning the video maker's logic?

I doubt you watched it beyond 5 minutes. Your ABC theory is over-simplified.
Belittling measures like "huge, vast" to negate the possibility are a rather foolish presentation and apply to either 1 of 2:

the perspective of a single minded individual or the actual potential possibility of the media being complicit in a scam.

What I am refusing to accept is your claim of being "correct", neither do I vouch for the correctness of the video makers claim.

Btw, you could comment on the article in the OP. That's what this thread is actually about. Maybe you just skipped that?

tbomachines · #33 03-13-2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Your argument gets sillier with every time.

My argument has been consistent. The video does not adequately substantiate any of its opening statistical claims but instead essentially says "1% that's crazy. right? You with me guys!?". Tell me where I've strayed from this.

Coupled with the intent and organization of media, the argument becomes debased. Tell me where I have strayed from this.

I don't care if you don't agree, which obviously you don't. From a statistical and logical standpoint they're glaring omissions that seriously undermine his credibility and argument.

Quote:

Who says I am not questioning the video maker's logic?

Then why are you even bothering to post in defense of it?

Quote:

I doubt you watched it beyond 5 minutes. Your ABC theory is over-simplified.

I did, but found the first 5 minutes (that which he builds upon) the most problematic.

And no kidding, because you didn't seem to be able to connect the dots when I actually explained my stance.

Quote:

Belittling measures like "huge, vast" to negate the possibility are a rather foolish presentation and apply to either 1 of 2:

the perspective of a single minded individual or the actual potential possibility of the media being complicit in a scam.

What I am refusing to accept is your claim of being "correct", neither do I vouch for the correctness of the video makers claim.

That is rich. Single minded: Someone who is posting in defense of a video they see on youtube with no background in its relevance or someone who is questioning said video's "proof" via its lack (or competing abundance) of mathematics and research statistics? Hmm...

If you mean by my critique of statistics, I am expressly pointing it out since its a critical oversight. If you are going to use statistics to base an argument, show either that (a) the stats that you are debating are mathematically incorrect or (b) show that you have an alternative that supports your argument. He does neither. This is theory or research methods 101.

Look, you can type from under your foil hat and listen to some guy on youtube prattle on about things he doesn't understand...or you can take the time to understand its pros and cons, and take time to listen to people with actual research and industry background. Take your pick. I've taken the time to point out a CON--one that would make the theory unsubstantiated in any peer-reviewed environment. Whether you agree with it or not (and I'm not asking you to, so I don't know why you keep debating the point), its still there.

Quote:

Btw, you could comment on the article in the OP. That's what this thread is actually about. Maybe you just skipped that?

I made an off-hand jest at another poster. I was going to be done there. You brought my comment from the other thread into this one. Maybe you just skipped over that? I don't have anything particularly scintillating to say about the article in the OP. Threads often take their own path.

LaRondo · #34 03-13-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

My argument has been consistent. The video does not adequately substantiate any of its opening statistical claims but instead essentially says "1% that's crazy. right? You with me guys!?". Tell me where I've strayed from this.

Coupled with the intent and organization of media, the argument becomes debased. Tell me where I have strayed from this.

I don't care if you don't agree, which obviously you don't. From a statistical and logical standpoint they're glaring omissions that seriously undermine his credibility and argument.

Then why are you even bothering to post in defense of it?

I did, but found the first 5 minutes (that which he builds upon) the most problematic.

And no kidding, because you didn't seem to be able to connect the dots when I actually explained my stance.

That is rich. Single minded: Someone who is posting in defense of a video they see on youtube with no background in its relevance or someone who is questioning said video's "proof" via its lack (or competing abundance) of mathematics and research statistics? Hmm...

If you mean by my critique of statistics, I am expressly pointing it out since its a critical oversight. If you are going to use statistics to base an argument, show either that (a) the stats that you are debating are mathematically incorrect or (b) show that you have an alternative that supports your argument. He does neither. This is theory or research methods 101.

Look, you can type from under your foil hat and listen to some guy on youtube prattle on about things he doesn't understand...or you can take the time to understand its pros and cons, and take time to listen to people with actual research and industry background. Take your pick. I've taken the time to point out a CON--one that would make the theory unsubstantiated in any peer-reviewed environment. Whether you agree with it or not (and I'm not asking you to, so I don't know why you keep debating the point), its still there.

I made an off-hand jest at another poster. I was going to be done there. You brought my comment from the other thread into this one. Maybe you just skipped over that? I don't have anything particularly scintillating to say about the article in the OP. Threads often take their own path.

Yes, your argument has been consistent, without incorporating the potential possibility indicated in the video.

I am sorry, but the consistency of your argument has much of a "Rumpelstilzchen" flavor. Nothing else has been brought to the table.

You have no knowledge about me or my background, instead you prefer to insinuate the possibility of a clueless person running into an incidental viewing of a tube video.

I have indeed skipped your comment/gesture at the other poster, since I regard it as useless gibberish, that includes the contents of the post it referred to.

My choice to discuss your rather unqualified comment in the video section here and not there is to keep the video section unpolluted for others to create their own opinion about it.

It figures you don't really have meaningful contribution on the OP. Neither does any of the otherwise fully engaged debaters.

That's fine, triviality rules!

tbomachines · #35 03-13-2012, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Yes, your argument has been consistent, without incorporating the potential possibility indicated in the video.

I am sorry, but the consistency of your argument has much of a "Rumpelstilzchen" flavor. Nothing else has been brought to the table.

You have no knowledge about me or my background, instead you prefer to insinuate the possibility of a clueless person running into an incidental viewing of a tube video.

I have indeed skipped your comment/gesture at the other poster, since I regard it as useless gibberish, that includes the contents of the post it referred to.

My choice to discuss your rather unqualified comment in the video section here and not there is to keep the video section unpolluted for others to create their own opinion about it.

It figures you don't really have meaningful contribution on the OP. Neither does any other of the otherwise fully engaged debaters.
That's fine, triviality rules!