Bungee Jumper

That's good, because winning this game would be the worst thing that could happen to this franchise. [/Deluca]

"A figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" In other words, it was NOT a metaphor, as relaxation of an excited system to a ground state bears absolutely no resemblance to regression toward the mean.

No, it just causes it to relax to a ground state. Which is not regression to a mean. It's a REALLY sh------- metaphor. I can even describe for you a model of an elastic band where relaxation to the ground state is LITERALLY regression to the mean...and it's STILL a sh------- metaphor.

Most Christmas decorations (or the most obvious - Christmas trees, for example) are Druidic in origin anyway. So maybe the Druidic religion is what's dying out...

What the !@#$ is wrong with you?

Of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing that, since you won't read one. But the internet told you so, and that's far more authorative.

I'd answer the question if it made sense. It doesn't. You can't randomly choose a non-random sample, no matter if you "randomly" choose 100 from a general population, or 100 from a non-random subset. What you really mean to ask is: Suppose you take a very large randomly chosen sample of people and administer an IQ test. How will the people that score 140 score on the second administration of the test. And I'll tell you EXACTLY how they'll score, as soon as I get a chance to do the math. Shall we agree on a mean of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, with a measurement error of mean 0 and standard deviation of...let's say 3?

Funny? I thought it was utterly predictable.

Selling cookbooks door-to-door.

I disagree with the methodology. Randomly choose a non-random set of data? You don't even understand the meaning of "random".

No, he consistently and to the end stated that error does NOT cause regression toward the mean, a normal distribution of data causes regression toward the mean. Which is in complete agreement with what I stated and explained, and in complete disagreement with your bull sh--. He also stated - explicitly - that you don't understand the concept of "error", which I've also been saying. He also said - explicitly - that your example (your incredibly stupid "Monte Carlo" exercise) proves the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove with it.

Yeah, that's what I said. I never supported the invasion to begin with, recall. Enlighten me: how many missiles did the inspectors "blow up"? Yeah, that's what I said too. If the UN passes a resolution, it MUST be enforced with an invasion, or not at all. There's no middle ground whatsoever.

I can guarantee you two things: 1) no textbook will "confirm" your delusions, 2) you'll think it will, because you're completely incapable of understanding it. You still haven't managed to define one basic statistical term correctly, in 28 pages. You couldn't read that textbook anyway.

Actually, if you read the threads, Wraith said at least three times that you're wrong.

Trick question. HA has no math skills.

It's also why the UN is a complete joke: if they refuse to enforce their resolutions, they're nothing more than a glorified debating society, of no more relevance than this message board.

He has a point? That would be a first...

I'm not asking you to pay anything. You asked for a link to a credible source that proves you wrong. I'd think a graduate level textbook on the subject is a credible source, and it proves you wrong. You refuse to pay $115 for it because you're deathly afraid of realizing you're a fool. Not looking like a fool, mind you. You clearly embrace that with a passion.

No, I'm saying I don't have to prove what's already proven. You've already proved you're an idiot. I don't have to prove it further.

The argument isn't whether or not it exists. The argument is whether or not it's caused by "error", as you mistakenly and ignorantly claim, or by the statistical dispersion of data according to a given probability distribution, as is claimed by everyone else in the known universe except yourself.

Eh. Discrete random values. Continuous random values. What's the difference?

But it's not my birthday. Since the true value of birthdays is July 2nd, my birthday today is just measurement error...

Read a !@#$ing textbook, moron.

You have GOT to be kidding. What, the UN's involvement in Iraq began in late 2002?

What part of "Pick up a textbook" do you not understand? If you did, you'd know that YOUR SOURCE IS WRONG.