New Year Resolutions

**NotLettingItGo** · 01-07-2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Would you also like to point out how you made about 700* posts about that "one woman" on a regular basis for the past 8 months?

* +/- 300

Good god man, no wonder modern science is so fucked, a 42% tolerance level... that's fucking madness.

Yes I have made an awful lot of posts, in response to you all, about this subject. Although they weren't all about her, some of them were about you all, and some of them were about me. I've still spent far too much time on the subject of her, which is a subject I should really be spending no time at all on, but you are all very persistent with your obsession about this subject. At least it's only here, that this subject has been something I have had to piss away time on.

**Burnsy** · 01-07-2012, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I love irony. Case in point: reading this post followed by your signature.

I didn't even notice that... it was totally unintentional

**mjmacky** · 01-07-2012, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Would you also like to point out how you made about 700* posts about that "one woman" on a regular basis for the past 8 months?

* +/- 300

Good god man, no wonder modern science is so fucked, a 42% tolerance level... that's fucking madness.

That's how statistics works, if you want to make a statement in the 99.5 % confidence interval, you have to accept a wide deviation. Further, it would be the failure to report error and deviation that would fuck modern science, you kind of have it backwards.

**NotLettingItGo** · 01-07-2012, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by mjmacky

That's how statistics works, if you want to make a statement in the 99.5 % confidence interval, you have to accept a wide deviation. Further, it would be the failure to report error and deviation that would fuck modern science, you kind of have it backwards.

Alternately you could just attempt to have some semblence of accuracy about the figures you're stating, thus making the margin of error you need to include much smaller and requiring a much smaller percentage of tolerance. Like I said your 42% explains why modern science is so fucked, we have scientists producing stuff with random numbers that probbaly bear no resemblence to anything, and then requiring 60% tolerance levels for their statements to be acceptable.

**mjmacky** · 01-07-2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah

Alternately you could just attempt to have some semblence of accuracy about the figures you're stating, thus making the margin of error you need to include much smaller and requiring a much smaller percentage of tolerance. Like I said your 42% explains why modern science is so fucked, we have scientists producing stuff with random numbers that probbaly bear no resemblence to anything, and then requiring 60% tolerance levels for their statements to be acceptable.

You seem to be fairly confused about almost everything. I can state with 95 % confidence that you seem to have no idea what you're talking about.