Poster with the biggest ego?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

AuH2O. Hands down.

[Ebowed]

AuH2O; Populist3.

[Gabu]

AuH2O.  Do we even need to ask?

[Rob]

Populist3.

Ah yes, our good friend Bandit. He said he endorsed Nader and that caused him to get a record vote in his county, or something.

[Ebowed]

Populist3.

Ah yes, our good friend Bandit. He said he endorsed Nader and that caused him to get a record vote in his county, or something.

Yeah, I hear that Nader even won New America.

[Gabu]

Populist3.

Ah yes, our good friend Bandit. He said he endorsed Nader and that caused him to get a record vote in his county, or something.

Both he and Bandit have big egos, but AuH2O is far more annoying about it.

[Alcon]

Migrendel certainly is rather self-assured, although I can't say he's stupid at all.

[Gabu]

Migrendel certainly is rather self-assured, although I can't say he's stupid at all.

Has migrendel ever directly asserted mental superiority and greater knowledgability over who he's debating with?

[Platypus]

I'm pretty arrogant, but nowhere near AuH2O, Keystone Phil or Jfern.

[Machiavelli]

Keystone Phil is not arrogant, he just takes some things too seriously it seems

[Keystone Phil]

I'm pretty arrogant, but nowhere near AuH2O, Keystone Phil or Jfern.

Uh...right. 

[Ebowed]

Let's take a stroll down memory lane...

So we can compromise and just say you're uninformed and gullible, as opposed to being a straight-up liar.

Well we know ignorance isn't my problem, since I have command of the material and you do not, in addition of course to a higher level of natural intelligence (such that both the ability and application are in my favor).

According to standardized tests I've taken, only about .0001% of the US population reads equally or better than me, if that.

Your ignorance isn't my problem though.

No one really cares about Canada anyway.

Such sociological and psychological issues go far beyond some elementary school communist whining about racism.

Just to clarify, you never "refuted" anything I said, and never accepted an actual statistical examination of your "work" to determine whether it had any meaning (which it didn't), presumably because you are simply incapable of serious analysis.

This problem is not uncommon because so few posters have even a rudimentary understanding of basic economic and statistical concepts, let alone the necessary methodology to do proper investigation. I mean, when you have people that don't know what a correlation coefficient is or what a least squares regression does or even what a standard deviation is, there is a limit to what can be accomplished empirically.

lol wow, you [Ebowed] are the dumbest person I've ever seen with the ability (apparently) to use a computer.

Generally I don't believe in it [interracial marriage], but I don't think it should be banned. I mean, if some fat white girl wants to "marry" a thug, I don't really care.

Now, if my sister (not that she's this dumb) were to so much as go out on a date with a black guy, there would be a problem.

And the way you talk about black men, it appears you are rather interested in them. I hope so-- that's a good way to get AIDS, and goodness knows the world would be better off without you.

This one is special so it gets its own category.

Which group is worse: NAMBLA or neo-Nazis?

um obviously NAMBLA

um obviously NAMBLA

Why is that obvious?  Because the neo-Nazis don't do much, or because you agree with them?

No response.

[J. J.]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

Jfern, on the other hand, has a fragile ego, as seen by his "You all hate me" posts.  To date, he is the only poster I've had to say, "No, I don't hate you," to, twice!  That's not a big ego.

[Gabu]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

I'm still not 100% convinced that that's his real personality.  I honestly cannot imagine how anyone could be such an absolute ass and still function in the real world.

[opebo]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

I'm still not 100% convinced that that's his real personality.  I honestly cannot imagine how anyone could be such an absolute ass and still function in the real world.

If you go out and observe the real world, you will find it is entirely run by absolute asses.

[J. J.]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

I'm still not 100% convinced that that's his real personality.  I honestly cannot imagine how anyone could be such an absolute ass and still function in the real world.

There called undergraduates?  ;-)

What I can't understand is, the facts are so easy to look up, why doesn't he just say, "Oh, I forgot about that?"  He really makes himself look like a jerk when he posts something that can be checked.  Also, if he wanted to be impressive, why not do things like have an email address, or a website (I don't have one either, but I limit the area where work to Phila usually).

[Gabu]

What I can't understand is, the facts are so easy to look up, why doesn't he just say, "Oh, I forgot about that?"  He really makes himself look like a jerk when he posts something that can be checked.  Also, if he wanted to be impressive, why not do things like have an email address, or a website (I don't have one either, but I limit the area where work to Phila usually).

That's exactly what I mean; how can someone be that sure of himself?  I mean, he makes Bush look indecisive and wishy-washy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

Jfern, on the other hand, has a fragile ego, as seen by his "You all hate me" posts.  To date, he is the only poster I've had to say, "No, I don't hate you," to, twice!  That's not a big ego.

That's because you always insist that I'm wrong without regard to the facts. It's clear that you have a bit of a bias, failing to every admit you're wrong on basic statistics after months.

[TeePee4Prez]

Was MarkDel, but now probably Mike Naso.

[TheWildCard]

The most arrogant poster in forum history for no good reason was: CTguy

The most arrogant poster for good reason (because he actually knew what he was talking about) was: MarkDel

[J. J.]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

Jfern, on the other hand, has a fragile ego, as seen by his "You all hate me" posts.  To date, he is the only poster I've had to say, "No, I don't hate you," to, twice!  That's not a big ego.

That's because you always insist that I'm wrong without regard to the facts. It's clear that you have a bit of a bias, failing to every admit you're wrong on basic statistics after months.

As I've indicated it was twice.  The first time was after I pointed of that something that happened in July of one year could not possibly cause something that happened in March of the same year.  Nothing related to statistics.

Now a number of people looked at you claims, and they made a judgment.  I believe one, and it wasn't me, described your statistical claims as "demonstratably false."

If you really are a grad student, as you claim, I seriously suggest that you print out description of the process that I gave and take it to a statistics professor.  Face to face, he might be better able to explain it.

I'm conviced that your problem is neither ego, nor math.  You don't understand how to construct the basic model of the tests that we've discussed; that's were the problems are with all of your statistical arguments.  If the model is invalid, the math will be worthless.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

Jfern, on the other hand, has a fragile ego, as seen by his "You all hate me" posts.  To date, he is the only poster I've had to say, "No, I don't hate you," to, twice!  That's not a big ego.

That's because you always insist that I'm wrong without regard to the facts. It's clear that you have a bit of a bias, failing to every admit you're wrong on basic statistics after months.

As I've indicated it was twice.  The first time was after I pointed of that something that happened in July of one year could not possibly cause something that happened in March of the same year.  Nothing related to statistics.

Now a number of people looked at you claims, and they made a judgment.  I believe one, and it wasn't me, described your statistical claims as "demonstratably false."

If you really are a grad student, as you claim, I seriously suggest that you print out description of the process that I gave and take it to a statistics professor.  Face to face, he might be better able to explain it.

I'm conviced that your problem is neither ego, nor math.  You don't understand how to construct the basic model of the tests that we've discussed; that's were the problems are with all of your statistical arguments.  If the model is invalid, the math will be worthless.

Classic J.J, claim I said something I didn't say, and then still claim you're right and I'm wrong. Tredrick's poll was biased, he didn't realize what we were arguing about the 940 heads and 60 tails. I ran the question as a poll, of course it ended up being close due to people deciding that since you've called me JFraud, I must be wrong,

Really, I've asked people if they agree with me, and they have, why don't you ask some people?

And I ran a poll on here, and the plurality agree with me

Question:  Is a sample of  940 heads and 60 tails statistically different (95% confidence) from that of a fair coin?

Yes: 7
No: 3
Question is invalid: 6


That's what me and J.J were arguing about for several months. I loved how other people missed that, and thought I was an idiot with some hypothetical unrealistic stuff I was talking about.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess my problem is that I get mad at stupid people who can't admit they're wrong.

[Gabu]

Oh, hell, not this one again.

[J. J.]

Classic J.J, claim I said something I didn't say, and then still claim you're right and I'm wrong. Tredrick's poll was biased, he didn't realize what we were arguing about the 940 heads and 60 tails. I ran the question as a poll, of course it ended up being close due to people deciding that since you've called me JFraud, I must be wrong,

Well here are the two theads:

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

JFRAUD, it is impossible to claim that the Enabling Act was supported because of the Concordat as the article claims, specifically:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conordat was signed on July 20, 1993.  Here at two links, including the text of the Concordat:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob37.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

The Enabling act was adopted on March 23, 1933, more than three months before the Concordat was signed. 

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

Are you suggesting that someone had a time machine so that they could bring a copy back from July of 1933 to March of 1933?  In 1933 March still happened before July.

You are now to the point disputing the calendar.

Nobody on this thread have said that they "hate" you.  I have never said that I "hate" you on any thread.

Here is something, which I wouldn't refer to as negative, that I said on the subject:

Go read a statistics book, or talk to a statistics professor, whatever, since you obviously can't accept the simple logic I put out because you hate me or something.  I'm sure I have more experience with statistics than you.

I do not hate you, but I also don't like people being attacked unfairly.  That is one of the reasons you never saw the "John Kerry: A War Criminal from a Family of Drug Dealers" thread. 

As far as I know, no poster on this thread "hates" you.

That's what you claimed and tried to argue out of both points.  Any poster interested can go and look.  These are also the two times when I said that I don't hate you.

"Classic JJ" is finding the information and posting it.  "Classic JFRAUD" is getting it wrong, and trying to weasel out of it.

Seriously, on one of those threads I suggested printing out my statement and taking to someone who understands how statistics work, and letting them explain the concept behing the math.