BowlBrother85
1 star recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 44,156
- Likes
- 38,528
Exactly. There is no way to know what the hell that means, given what information was provided.is it? thats an assumption, because nothing is shown for the X axis. that could 100% be an arbitrary line, that could be votes over beer consumption per inning of baseball watched. it could be votes per 1000 counted. it could be votes per Honda accords.
they are literally giving you half the information and hoping you make an assumption that pisses you off. no honest statistician is going to present a chart without the X axis filled in. given that its obviously a political take designed to make you angry, and you don't have enough information to even know if you actually should be angry.
Who said I was pissed off, you seem more angry than me..is it? thats an assumption, because nothing is shown for the X axis. that could 100% be an arbitrary line, that could be votes over beer consumption per inning of baseball watched. it could be votes per 1000 counted. it could be votes per Honda accords.
they are literally giving you half the information and hoping you make an assumption that pisses you off. no honest statistician is going to present a chart without the X axis filled in. given that its obviously a political take designed to make you angry, and you don't have enough information to even know if you actually should be angry.
someone was upset enough to post it without knowing what it really says. they just know someone told them it fits some preconcieved bias, so they jump on it.Who said I was pissed off, you seem more angry than me..
It is a ratio of votes, and of course it is time, not your off the wall hypotheticals. LikeI said, I dont know if accurate.
Why not show the whole graph? There is no way that was done by accident. Nobody who is trying to prove something legitimate is that sloppy. There is no way to even know what the hell it's trying to show.Who said I was pissed off, you seem more angry than me..
It is a ratio of votes, and of course it is time, not your off the wall hypotheticals. LikeI said, I dont know if accurate.
I have said it before .... An echo chamber is what they seem to prefer. For them, this forum is more about seeking an affirmation of their belief system, than it is having constructive debates with substantive dialogue, where opposing perspectives are being presented.
You brought up echo chambers and seeking affirmation. This Democrat rep is stating that he’s receiving backlash from his colleagues and others for trying to discuss an issue in which they have differing opinions.Why did you include my post with this?
It is deductive logic...it is Time. But whatever, my guy won and I am happy as a clam.someone was upset enough to post it without knowing what it really says. they just know someone told them it fits some preconcieved bias, so they jump on it.
it COULD be time. that may even be the most reasonable ASSUMPTION. but that doesn't make it the case. like I said, whoever made that chart, did so in a dishonest manner; which makes me suspicious regardless of the subject matter, or how I feel about it.
You think it's perfectly fine to have a normal practice of taking over a week to count ballots. There is very little you do understand.Seriously.
What do you think that graph shows without the independent variable data from the x-axis displayed (it should be below the horizontal line)? There is no way to know what the hell that even means ... but please tell us if you know.
This is great from you. Always good for a few laughs.I have said it before .... An echo chamber is what they seem to prefer. For them, this forum is more about seeking an affirmation of their belief system, than it is having constructive debates with substantive dialogue, where opposing perspectives are being presented.
LOL. In Arizona, it is normal practice, and within their laws.You think it's perfectly fine to have a normal practice of taking over a week to count ballots. There is very little you do understand.
It really seems like you guys just want to change the subject .... and do not want to answer the question :says the guy who used “logic” to argue about diary rings for weeks..lmao
sure, but why do they want you to deduce anything? why not flat out present the WHOLE truth?It is deductive logic...it is Time. But whatever, my guy won and I am happy as a clam.
I have long since admitted, I was probably wrong .... I was skeptical of its contents because the couple who found it were clearly out to make as much money as they could from it, from the moment they found it. It was also sold to Project Veritas, who has a history of tampering with evidence and bribing witnesses to lie for them ....You didn’t know diaries were kept in trapper keepers and easily forged?