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

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[J. J.]

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.

He apparently thinks that watches have addresses on them:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[J. J.]

Here is story:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, where is the word "watch?"  (It does appear in some of the comments, as a verb.)

[© tweed]

This 'misunderstanding' by jfern is a classic.

[J. J.]

This 'misunderstanding' by jfern is a classic.

Very.  And he wonders why nobody believes him.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[© tweed]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[© tweed]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[© tweed]

A fair coin will not produce those numbers.

[J. J.]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[© tweed]

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

You will NEVER get 940 heads.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Jfern, you really don't know what a Rolodex is?  I guess some people don't remember what life was like before the internet.

[© tweed]

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.

[J. J.]

A fair coin will not produce those numbers.

Ah, but that isn't question, in a statistical sense.  It is, can you say with 95% certainty that, using 940 heads out of 1000 tosses, that the coin will come up heads?

Interestingly, I've JFRAUD these two questions and still have not gotten an answer.

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

2. Can you claim that the coin is behaving differently than expected values?

It's not a trick question.  Tweed, you want to try it?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[J. J.]

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.

No, that's what probabilities are all about.  Want to take a shot at the questions?

[© tweed]

A fair coin will not produce those numbers.

Ah, but that isn't question, in a statistical sense.  It is, can you say with 95% certainty that, using 940 heads out of 1000 tosses, that the coin will come up heads?

Interestingly, I've JFRAUD these two questions and still have not gotten an answer.

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

2. Can you claim that the coin is behaving differently than expected values?

It's not a trick question.  Tweed, you want to try it?

I'll go no and yes.  The coin technically will still have a 50-50 chance of landing on either side.  For the second question, I believe you can.  The coin is expected to land on heads 500 times, and it lands heads 940 times.  That is behavior that deviates from that of what is expected.

[J. J.]

A fair coin will not produce those numbers.

Ah, but that isn't question, in a statistical sense.  It is, can you say with 95% certainty that, using 940 heads out of 1000 tosses, that the coin will come up heads?

Interestingly, I've JFRAUD these two questions and still have not gotten an answer.

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

2. Can you claim that the coin is behaving differently than expected values?

It's not a trick question.  Tweed, you want to try it?

I'll go no and yes.  The coin technically will still have a 50-50 chance of landing on either side.  For the second question, I believe you can.  The coin is expected to land on heads 500 times, and it lands heads 940 times.  That is behavior that deviates from that of what is expected.

Gold star for Boss Tweed.  :-)

Okay, now which of these used two questions is used to determine statistical significance?