Posted by emy1013 on 9/4/2012 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
I consider my team to be great based upon my own standards, which are all that matter to me.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider great a in the b?

Then, you sir, have VERY low standards.

Five (?) losses to SIM TEAMS and you consider your team great?  That really, REALLY says a lot.

its actually 6, he lost to a 318 rpi sim, too

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I IMPLY NOTHING.

If at any time you're unsure of whether I mean something, all you have to do is ask and I'll be happy to clarify. But if you want to read things into it that aren't there instead of asking, that's on you. Don't act like I said it when you assumed it.

or...

Milk didn't take what I said for what it was. Milk took what I said for what he wanted it to be, as that would allow him to make a goofy statement he thought would poke fun at me. If milk was confused about what I meant, milk could have asked for clarification. milk chose not to do that, and that's not my fault.

When I said probability, it meant statistical probability. That should have been obvious given the context of what I was referencing.

Which is it?  Should we take you at face value or make assumptions?  You can't have it both ways.

You take it at face value, the same as I've always said.

milk didn't do that. He assumed it meant something (I'm still not sure exactly how or what) that had something to do with confusing "probably" with "probability".

A simple internet search will explain the concept of probability for anyone, which should allow those with even moderate amounts of intelligence (such as enough to use this forum) to get the meaning of what I said - which, again, had nothin to do with what milk was saying.

i am not even sure he is legitimately making a point anymore, i think he is just trying to antagonize people out of frustration. i mean, i think he was legitimately beating his head against the wall for a long time there, but his last 10 or 20 posts have almost all been the same, at this point.

Posted by bistiza on 9/5/2012 10:05:00 AM (view original):

ryrun,

Milk didn't take what I said for what it was. Milk took what I said for what he wanted it to be, as that would allow him to make a goofy statement he thought would poke fun at me. If milk was confused about what I meant, milk could have asked for clarification. milk chose not to do that, and that's not my fault.

When I said probability, it meant statistical probability. That should have been obvious given the context of what I was referencing.

If, however, it somehow wasn't obvious, anyone has the ability to ask rather than jump to conclusions. That would have been the responsible thing to do, but when poeple want to jump on me every chance they get for no reason, of course they'd rather take the less responsible route and attack first and ask questions later.

I said what I meant. He was so bent on attacking me he ignored the obvious meaning, didn't both asking if he wasn't sure, and went straight in for what he assumed.

You're right, though. This is the fifth or sixth time someone has tried to twist something I've said because it makes it easy for them to attack it. Try having a real conversation instead of looking to attack things and you might not misinterpret them so much.

No, according to you he confused "probability" with "statistical probability".  If he is to take it at face value, then he acted properly by citing your use of "probability".

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/5/2012 11:29:00 AM (view original):
i am not even sure he is legitimately making a point anymore, i think he is just trying to antagonize people out of frustration. i mean, i think he was legitimately beating his head against the wall for a long time there, but his last 10 or 20 posts have almost all been the same, at this point.

Yeah, I thought he was almost out when he was, genuinely or not, entertaining the thought that he might not be right about every single thing.  I was rooting for him.

No, according to you he confused "probability" with "statistical probability".  If he is to take it at face value, then he acted properly by citing your use of "probability".

...and if he did not act properly, then the person in the first example did act properly.  You can't have it both ways.

*Edited*

Never mind. This is a pointless waste of time trying to clarify things for people who deliberately do not want to understand it.

It was entertaining when people actually tried to debate me, but this is just pointless.

Posted by milkamania on 9/4/2012 3:27:00 PM (view original):
""The people do exist and I explained that to you before. It's just probability""

this BY FAR is my favorite line of the whole debate.  he exists because he probably exists.  priceless

He was referring to your exact statement.  He quoted you.  He then provided reference.

prob·a·bil·i·ty (prb-bl-t) KEY

NOUN:
pl. prob·a·bil·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood

So - BY DEFINITION it's something that is not certainly true.  It's something that is probably true.

Remind me again what the original question/comment/concern of this post was? I turn my head for a second and 10 more pages get added.

Posted by bistiza on 9/5/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):
*Edited*

Never mind. This is a pointless waste of time trying to clarify things for people who deliberately do not want to understand it.

It was entertaining when people actually tried to debate me, but this is just pointless.

"Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin ..."

llama that's not  the correct definition for this contextual use of probability. Even if it were (and again, it's not) that still doesn't equte "probability" with "probably", which is what he said (you even quoted it for us to see again).

When I pointed that out, he insisted he was right and called me a liar instead of admitted he misunderstood and had used the wrong interpretation of the word.

I said there are a lot of people who don't make demands and a lot of people who don't put up with them, so it stands to reason some of them would be coaches and some would be players, as it's just probability.

The point was with a large number of people in the population having those attributes, it is statistically likley some of them would become coaches and players and also have those attributes. In fact, it's prohibitively unlikley none of them would ever be coaches or players.

This concept could easily be gotten by milk (or anyone) if he hadn't been so focused on attacking me and had considered it for just one moment.

This will be the last time I try to explain this to those who apparently don't want to get it.

Perhaps when you are having to explain what you "really meant" every post ... It means your wonderful debating skills are
... Well ... Not that wonderful?

So should it be read "probability" or "statistical probability"?  Should we take your words literally and specifically, since you IMPLY NOTHING, or should we look beyond the words to determine what you mean to say?

And yes, if you want "probability" to be read "statistical probability", then you are conceding that you do, in fact, imply things.

Many words in the English language have mulitple definitions, llamanuts. In this case, context should have told you what which one was correct.

However, if you're still somehow unsure which one I meant, you can easily ask.

No one needed to "look beyond the words" at all. There was no implication.

It's called using context to figure out meaning. If you can't do that, I'm sure there is a elementary school child somewhere who could help you.