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?
03-13-2012, 02:04 PM
Threaded Mode
