Orton's Arm

As usual, you're wrong.

A 1998 World Health Organization report concluded that of the world's ten most polluted cities, seven are in China. According to the environmental official Wang Jinnan, over 410,000 Chinese people die each year as a result of pollution. Here's a link to more information.

When I read this, I thought to myself, why on earth is a post this good coming from Bungee Jumper? You kept up the high quality of posts for a few pages, I'll give you credit there. But then you started throwing unfounded insults at Molson and Oliver. And I thought to myself, yep, that's the Bungee Jumper that I know.

Here's a definition for math, from dictionary.com

The fact that you were too ignorant or stupid to understand the links I provided does not invalidate them.

I'm sorry, for a while there I thought you had some actual math in mind that was relevant to the discussion about regression toward the mean. It turns out I was being naive, and that you just like throwing the word "math" around to make yourself seem big and important. As for the test/retest phenomenon (a.k.a. regression toward the mean), I've already provided links from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and other credible sources which describe the phenomenon. For you to ask for additional proof is absurd.

Your post implies: a) that you're a man, and b) that you have a penis. Why should I accept either of these assertions?

My point--which apparently sailed right over your ugly head--is that you don't have the standing to throw insults at anyone on these boards. As far as DeLuca, many of the points he raises are valid. But he'd be better served to present them in a less black-and-white manner. Take Marv's free agent signings. None of them have turned into anything better than quality backups/stopgap starters; which DeLuca correctly pointed out. But because DeLuca didn't immediately dwell on the positive side of those free agents (youth, they provide good depth, low salaries), his posts were dismissed as part of an anti-Marv crusade. DeLuca's not perfect, but he at least tries to contribute to intelligent discussions (albeit in a very opinionated way). You, on the other hand, spend your time calling people idiots. If I had to put one or the other of you on ignore, it'd be an easy call. And it wouldn't be DeLuca.

I take it that penis enlarger's been working for you!

You've been arguing about regression toward the mean for over 50 pages, and you're just now offering to provide relevant math? I don't (yet) want to take you up on your offer to put that PDF file together. What I would like to know is the point that this hypothetical math would be intended to illustrate. The test/retest phenomenon itself exists, at least according to people at Stanford, Duke, the University of Chicago, Berkeley, etc. I don't think you're seriously planning to continue disputing the phenomenon itself, and you'd look foolish if you did. I think we both agree that in a test/retest situation, where the correlation between test and retest is less than 1, those who obtain extreme scores the first time around will tend to score closer to the population's mean upon being retested. If your math wouldn't be intended to dispute that point, then what would you be trying to show with it?

Um, thanks for at least managing to provide a link to ESPN. I suppose you really are doing your best, and I should be patient with you. Maybe once you start making correct assertions, you'll be able to find links which actually support what you're saying.

Sounds reasonable, though I'd prefer three threads: 1. A thread for an intelligent discussion about things that actually matter. 2. A thread for debates about esoteric concepts such as regression toward the mean, the definition of "expected value," etc. 3. A thread for name-calling and other insults. The problem is that Bungee Jumper and Ramius would participate in thread #1, but only with thread 2 or thread 3-type material.

Thanks.

You've made no effort to prove they're my exact words. Nor, for that matter, have you provided any relevant math.

I agree the Bills should be making a major push to sign Nate Clements. But I don't know if you can blame Marv if Clements leaves. It could just be Ralph being cheap. On the other hand, Wilson seemed willing to spend money back when TD was the GM . . . I'll agree most of the free agents signed last year were disappointing, and I'm not thrilled with any of last year's FA signings. Tuten Reyes, Larry Triplett, Melvin Fowler, Robert Royal, Peerless Price . . . the Bills could legitimately attempt to upgrade all of those guys this coming draft. Most of the guys on that list represent good depth, and most of them are young. But you really don't want any of those guys starting. But it wasn't a total disaster. You really need four solid DTs, and Triplett can be part of a rotation. By no means is Fowler the next Kent Hull, but he's good enough to (sort of) get you by while you focus on other needs for a year or two. The same could be said about Robert Royal. While last year's free agent class may not have provided any long-term, bona fide answers at starting positions, it did allow the Bills to reduce their level of desperation at certain positions. Ideally, those players will be forced into backup roles, where they'll provide excellent depth. That may not happen this off-season, but I hope it happens soon.

I'll accept that excuse. And I'll add that in all probability, Ramius's private parts probably don't give you a whole lot to work with.

No. If you want to prove that I used an exact phrase, you provide the link.

It's so much easier to provide excuses than links, isn't it? BTW, you must have made a really lousy TA.

You raise a number of good points. But if it's a choice between keeping Nate and keeping McGahee, I'll go with Nate. CBs last longer than RBs, and Nate's a better player anyway. My fear is that if the Bills lose Nate, they'll end up taking a CB with their first round pick. If you look at the draft day value chart, the Bills' first round pick has more trade value than all their other picks combined. I don't want to see the Bills use up more than half their draft-day value just to tread water at CB. There are too many positions we still need to improve at. If I knew the Bills wouldn't draft a CB before the 3rd round, it would be another story. As for Fletcher, I don't mind seeing him go.

Care to back that up with a link?

The problem is that you haven't supplied any link to support your views, not even one from some guy's free homepage. Until you provide a credible link, you're just wasting everyone's time by arguing about definitions you think you remember a lot better than you actually do.

So that's your excuse for being stingy with oral sex! But if Ramius's mood is any indication, your oral sex ability . . . leaves a little something to be desired. What's your excuse for that?

I agree good teams are built primarily through the draft. But the value of drafting well is severely diminished when you let your draft-day success stories (like Clements) walk away after their first contract is over. Minor nitpick: Jason Peters was an undrafted free agent, not a draft pick.

The distinction you're attempting to create does not exist in the article BlueFire found. Here's the relevant quote: Your statements are also directly contradicted by the Wikipedia article You claim that the phrase "expected value" has a different meaning depending on whether it's applied to a single trial, or to multiple trials. Care to support that with a link?

No, I have a strong grasp on this situation. You decided to mock my explanation of expected value, without first bothering to look up the concept. As usual, you united ignorance with overconfidence to make a fool out of yourself.