From the sh**t you can't make up pile

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One of DeLay's cronies in the House is accused of stealing a watch from another Republican.

http://coloradopols.com/archives/2005/10/holtzman_campai_1.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

JFern, you've done it again!

ROTFLMAO!

Do you know the difference between a 'rolodex' and a 'rolex'?

Its about Time(ex) you learned to read.

I assumed it was a watch because they said watch where I got it from.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This 'misunderstanding' by jfern is a classic.

Very.  And he wonders why nobody believes him.

Someone had mentioned a watch and linked to it. So it's not a watch after all, who cares?
At least I don't argue that 940 heads and 60 tails aren't statistically significant for 9 months.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At least I don't argue that 940 heads and 60 tails aren't statistically significant for 9 months.

Nope; instead, you argue that they are statistically significant for nine months.

What's wrong with arguing the correct position?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At least I don't argue that 940 heads and 60 tails aren't statistically significant for 9 months.

Nope; instead, you argue that they are statistically significant for nine months.

What's wrong with arguing the correct position?

There's no correct answer; that's what debate is.  Don't claim that your side is right just because you agree with it.  The point of your comment, as would be understood by 99% of people reading it, would be that it's lame to argue something silly for 9 months.  You've done the same thing, but you justify it by claiming you're right.

The statement "A sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically diffferent from that a fair coin at the 95% confidence level" is 100% correct mathematical fact. Anyone who understands statistics would agree with me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A fair coin will not produce those numbers.

Well, it's exceedly improbable (although it does have a small non-zero probability) so it's statistically significant. If you knew what statistically significant meant, you'd admit I was right.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This 'misunderstanding' by jfern is a classic.

Very.  And he wonders why nobody believes him.

Someone had mentioned a watch and linked to it. So it's not a watch after all, who cares?
At least I don't argue that 940 heads and 60 tails aren't statistically significant for 9 months.

Why should we believe what you have to say about anything if you cannot even realize that watches don't contain addresses.  

Actually, you do argue it, since you've just raised again.  Of course the answers can be found here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20985.0

and here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

not to mention, here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=21088.15

Oh, and of course here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23064.0

JFRAUD, I don't even have to call you an idiot; people can determine it from your posts.  Please however, for the sake of the human race, don't reproduce.

No matter how much you try to argue, that doesn't change the fact that a sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern, go flip a fair coin 1000 times.  Repeat over and over again.

You will NEVER get 940 heads.

What does that have to do with my statement? It's clear that you have no idea what "statistically significantly different" means and would rather just mindlessly bash on me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It would not be significant because it would prove the coin is unfair, weighted to one side, etc.  A fair coin will not produce those numbers.  We're just going to keep going in circles here so I doubt I'll post again about coins.

That's what statistically significant difference is all about.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL at J.J. continuing to argue that 940 heads and 60 tails are not statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL at J.J. continuing to argue that 940 heads and 60 tails are not statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin.

LOL at jfern refusing to answer the two question JJ posed to him.

I already answered them a zillion times.

Really, this entire thread should be deleted, since not a single message in it has anything to do with Congressional elections.

The guy involved is a Congressman and a DeLay crony.

Is King Fahd dead yet?

Also, I'll echo what Alcon and NickG said right before this post.

Someone had mentioned a watch, so that's what I assumed it was. At least I admit I'm wrong, unlike J.J.

This 'misunderstanding' by jfern is a classic.

Very.  And he wonders why nobody believes him.

Yeah, but we don't to wonder anymore why he is so dilusional.  He believed the source he got this from without checking the story out for himself.  No wonder he believes everything on DU and DailyKOS

The story is true exactly as written, I just thought it'd be a watch.


People like J.J. who won't admit that they're wrong 9 months later need to STFU already. Doesn't anyone care about the actual story, or are you all idiots who would rather score cheap political points by bashing me? You are pathetic, and an example of why America is in such sh**tty shape.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL at J.J. continuing to argue that 940 heads and 60 tails are not statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin.

LOL at jfern refusing to answer the two question JJ posed to him.

I already answered them a zillion times.

Oh, where?  You know, Boss Tweed answered it, with a minimum of fuss.  He claims to be 14 years old and doesn't claim to be a grad student (though he's obviously reasonably intelligent) and he was able to understand and answer the question.  Why couldn't you?

I already answered your stupid questions. It's clear that you're just too dense to accept that you're wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The guy involved is a Congressman and a DeLay crony.

[/quote]

If you read the first line of the article, you'd note this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This involves a Republican Primary for Governor in Colorado; it does not involve Tom DeLay.  Beauprez is a Representative like 434 other people; DeLay raised money for his Congressional races, but he isn't involved here.  DeLay has raised money for most sitting GOP members; I reasonably sure that we can find a Democrat that has done the same thing (Pelosi perhaps).  I don't claim that every Democrat is her "crony."

Now, it's interesting if you are particularly interested in CO politics, but it's not relevant to Congress.

[/quote]
The point is, he's in Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've quoted the article in its entirety.  The term "watch" does not appear.  It does not appear as a noun referring to a time piece word on a wrist or carried in a pocket.  It refers to having several thousand addresses on it.  It's kinda hard to confuse the two.

Here is an example, nobody mentioned "watch."  The article has been posted, yet you claim that, "Somebody had mentioned a watch."  That claim verifiable false, yet you repeat it.

[/quote]
I never said anyone here mentioned watch. This is 2005, devices the size of a watch can be used for things under than telling time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very.  And he wonders why nobody believes him.
[/quote]

Yeah, but we don't to wonder anymore why he is so dilusional.  He believed the source he got this from without checking the story out for himself.  No wonder he believes everything on DU and DailyKOS
[/quote]

The story is true exactly as written, I just thought it'd be a watch.


People like J.J. who won't admit that they're wrong 9 months later need to STFU already. Doesn't anyone care about the actual story, or are you all idiots who would rather score cheap political points by bashing me? You are pathetic, and an example of why America is in such sh**tty shape.
[/quote]

No, actually, we're are being honest, we quote sources, read the links that we post, and when we make a mistake, we correct it.  We don't try to concoct these lunatic theories, without evidence, and we actually read the post and the links that others do.  You post exceptionally error ridden things and then get called on it.  That is your fault, not those pointing it out.

I'm only happy to say that you are not representative of most of the Democrats in the county or on this board.   If you were, we'd be a one party, Republican, counrty.
[/quote]

It's sad that you continue to bash that I got part of the story wrong, and ignore the actual story, after I admit that I got it wrong because of what someone else says. This all coming from someone with ZERO CREDIBILITY thanks to 9 months of arguing the same wrong position to a basic statistics course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I never said anyone here mentioned watch. This is 2005, devices the size of a watch can be used for things under than telling time.

Here is your first post:

One of DeLay's cronies in the House is accused of stealing a watch from another Republican.

http://coloradopols.com/archives/2005/10/holtzman_campai_1.html

Now, you've just given anybody reading this ample reason why we shouldn't believe you about anything.

Now, you've claimed that you anserwed my question.  Okay, where?  Just post the link.

The race Beauprez is in is NOT a congressional race.  This is a governor's race.

At this point, you've contradicted your first post on this thread; you can't even tell the truth about your own posts on the same thread.  And everydody gets a chance to read it.

You ing dishonest peice of trash. Beauprez is a Congressman. Yes, I know it's not a congressional race.

As for the questons, you are ing busted.

Here's what you asked.

1. Okay, based on the 940 heads out of 1000 can you claim, with 95% certainty, that the coin comes up heads? 

Already answered here:

1. The set of all possible coin flips is infinite, so none of your post applies
2. Even if it was finite, it would still be statistically significant.
3. When I say that it's statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level, that means that if
a) The null hypothesis is correct
then I falsely reject it at most 5% of the time. You don't seem to understand that. You say "5% chance that the poll is wrong", but who cares, it's irrelevant to statistical significance at the 95% confidence level, and you can't just say the poll has a 5% chance of being wrong anyways, it's a 5% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, which is meaningless if the null hypothesis is false.

1.  We are discussing a sample, 1000 tosses.

2.  You could not determine that, with a 95% chance of certainty, that the coin will come up heads.  The theory that is being tested is, does the coin always come up heads, not if the coin beats the odds.

You are referring to probability, not statistics.

1. 1000 coin tosses is a sample of 1000 from an infinite population.

2. I never said that you'd be 95% certain that the next coin would be heads. That's not what were were arguing about. That's not required to conclude that there are statistically significantly more heads than tails (with 95% confidence). If it was 50.000001% heads, and I did 10^100 coin tosses, I should basically always reject the null hypothesis of a fair coin. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This queston doesn't even make sense.

End of argument, you liar who thinks that 940 heads and 60 tails can't possibly be statistically significant.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You ing dishonest peice of trash. Beauprez is a Congressman. Yes, I know it's not a congressional race.

As for the questons, you are ing busted.

If you "know" that this is not a congressional election, why did you post it under section called  "Congressional Elections?"

Now, this is an interesting story about the Colorado Republican Primary for governor, but not a congressional election.  It's not related to DeLay at all.  It is exceptionally doubtful that DeLay knows any more about it than what has been released publicly, if he even read the story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Already answered here:

1. The set of all possible coin flips is infinite, so none of your post applies
2. Even if it was finite, it would still be statistically significant.
3. When I say that it's statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level, that means that if
a) The null hypothesis is correct
then I falsely reject it at most 5% of the time. You don't seem to understand that. You say "5% chance that the poll is wrong", but who cares, it's irrelevant to statistical significance at the 95% confidence level, and you can't just say the poll has a 5% chance of being wrong anyways, it's a 5% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, which is meaningless if the null hypothesis is false.

1.  We are discussing a sample, 1000 tosses.

2.  You could not determine that, with a 95% chance of certainty, that the coin will come up heads.  The theory that is being tested is, does the coin always come up heads, not if the coin beats the odds.

You are referring to probability, not statistics.

1. 1000 coin tosses is a sample of 1000 from an infinite population.

2. I never said that you'd be 95% certain that the next coin would be heads. That's not what were were arguing about. That's not required to conclude that there are statistically significantly more heads than tails (with 95% confidence). If it was 50.000001% heads, and I did 10^100 coin tosses, I should basically always reject the null hypothesis of a fair coin. 

You'll note that you never answered the question (and in this post, I actually didn't ask a question). 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This queston doesn't even make sense.

End of argument, you liar who thinks that 940 heads and 60 tails can't possibly be statistically significant.

You don't understand expected value?  Here is the Wiki articale on it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

What doesn't make sense, is that Tweed (and no offense here Tweed) who doesn't claim to have or be working on an advanced graduate degree (and it possible, but most people his age don't), understands it.  You, who claim an to be a grad student that has studied this, don't.

People can read this thread and judge both your accuracy and ability.
[/quote]

Your question indicates that you are incapable of asking a precise statistical question. Perhaps you meant is the coin behaving statistically significantly different from what was expected (a fair coin).

I never said anyone here mentioned watch. This is 2005, devices the size of a watch can be used for things under than telling time.

Here is your first post:

One of DeLay's cronies in the House is accused of stealing a watch from another Republican.

http://coloradopols.com/archives/2005/10/holtzman_campai_1.html

Bumped, for some kind of response.  Jfern, did you actually read the article before you posted it here?

Someone had mentioned a watch, and I quickly skimmed it, and didn't catch that it was a Rolodex, which I only now know isn't a watch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

J.J. --- Are you actually arguing that 940 heads and 60 tails is not statistically significant when the null hypothesis is that this is a fair coin?

No, what I've been arguing is that this result is not statistically significant if you are attempting to show that the coin will always come up heads.  There is no question that it well exceeds the expected value for heads.

Look at the result, can you state with 95% certainty that the coin will come up heads?

I never claimed that getting heads 94% of the time would imply that you get heads at least 95% of the time.

Someone had mentioned a watch, and I quickly skimmed it, and didn't catch that it was a Rolodex, which I only now know isn't a watch.

The only person who mentioned a watch was you.  The word "watch" does not appear in the article.

You seem incapable of reading. I never claimed that anyone had mentioned it on this forum, seeing as I started the thread.

If I'm not mistaken... the question is, can I say with 95% certainty that the probability of getting a heads is greater than one half?

That's almost right. What you decribed would be a 1 tail 95% confidence test or a 2-tail 90% confidence test. I was talking about a 2-tail 95% confidence test.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One of DeLay's cronies in the House is accused of stealing a watch from another Republican.

http://coloradopols.com/archives/2005/10/holtzman_campai_1.html

The article doesn't use the word "watch," period.  The full text has been posted.

I'm beginning to wonder if JFRAUD hasn't been planted by the Republicans to make the Democrats look bad.  :-) That's actually beginning to look possible.

Can you say so with 95% certainty?
[/quote]

Whatever you say, Mr.-a-95%-correlation-can-never-be-statistically-significant. I have no tolerance for Republicans like you who are wrong, won't admit they're wrong, and then bash me. You are exactly why I am not a Republican.