4 ms·
You're being pompous. I never claimed to have those things. Re-read my original comment with my edit and you will see why I believe your statistics in fact do
by jazoom 9y ago
You're being pompous. I never claimed to have those things.
Re-read my original comment with my edit and you will see why I believe your statistics in fact do not answer the question of how meaningful Uber's fatality is. I doubt your expert testimony of pedantic statistics will trump common sense and the video evidence.
- bitumen 9y agoIt’s ironic, but true that telling someone they’re pompous is almost always in itself, very pompous. In general I find that making a reasoned argument is inevitably more valuable and convincing than calling people names. Calling names is saying: "you are a pompous person". It is very different to saying "you are being pompous". And you accused someone else of pedantry!
- jazoom 9y ago@bitumen, calling names is saying: "you are a pompous person". It is very different to saying "you are being pompous".
- ineedasername 9y agoI have pointed out an error in your statistical reasoning. This is not a matter of pomposity or opinion. No insult was intended, and i retract the snark. My criticism of your statisitcal reasoning, however, stands.
- jazoom 9y agoI have no problem with people pointing out errors and new ideas to me. It's how we learn. That's not what I was referring to. It was more the calling me a "bad statistician", the "do not pass go", the "leave the details to the students", commenting on my understanding of statistics and probability, telling me to "do my homework" and telling me how to get the answer to a question I didn't pose. I'm not upset and I don't hold it against you. I know the written word can sometimes be more difficult to interpret. I appreciate your retraction.