Re: Announcement - Frank Krygowski defeated in prolonged debate

[SMS]

Greens wrote:

<snip>

> Frank Krygowski defeated 9-5-2007 using his own favorite tool, statistics.

Uh, what make you think that comparisons of skydiving versus bicycling
are any more statistically relevant than comparisons of injuries from
driving, deaths from cancer, injuries from falling at home, etc.

You spent a lot of effort for nothing. Frank has no credibility when it
comes to using statistics, you've not shown anything that all of us on
this group haven't known for many years.

 

[Greens]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greens wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Frank Krygowski defeated 9-5-2007 using his own favorite tool,
>> statistics.
>
> Uh, what make you think that comparisons of skydiving versus bicycling are
> any more statistically relevant than comparisons of injuries from driving,
> deaths from cancer, injuries from falling at home, etc.
>
> You spent a lot of effort for nothing. Frank has no credibility when it
> comes to using statistics, you've not shown anything that all of us on
> this group haven't known for many years.

Looks to me like your flame took no effort and makes no real statement
except something vague about Frank's credibility. Also you can't figure out
why I bothered to...and blah, blah.

It's a discussion. This is a newsgroup.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Greens wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Frank Krygowski defeated 9-5-2007 using his own favorite tool,
> >> statistics.
> >
> > Uh, what make you think that comparisons of skydiving versus
> > bicycling are any more statistically relevant than comparisons of
> > injuries from driving, deaths from cancer, injuries from falling at
> > home, etc.
> >
> > You spent a lot of effort for nothing. Frank has no credibility
> > when it comes to using statistics, you've not shown anything that
> > all of us on this group haven't known for many years.
>
> Looks to me like your flame took no effort and makes no real
> statement except something vague about Frank's credibility. Also you
> can't figure out why I bothered to...and blah, blah.

Looks to me like you're another Internet kook, "Greens."

> It's a discussion. This is a newsgroup.

And you are neither interested in a discussion or in learning something
new.

I join those who say "plonk."