Quote:
Originally Posted by dsh_spb
Please, show me one example of such a statement made by me.
Read the post. I never suggested you made such a post.
Clue: a lot != all
Quote:
A lot of non-rigtards say they don't think OLP is not rigged.
They then make statements that demonstrate that is exactly what they do believe.
You are trying to be too clever.
What you say above is simply untrue. Those of us who try to inject some sense into the 'tard's thinking simply say that it does not seem likely and there is no evidence.
That's it. It's not likely.
Quote:
At such an extrem you are right. In more complicated matters open mindedness is preferable, IMO.
But 'tards
are extreme. They hold a position when there is a vast amount of evidence available and none of it supports that position. That is intellectually extreme and also extremely daft.
Quote:
that was quite a purpose of this statement
Whatever that might mean.
Quote:
I have some basic understanding of probability and statistic and I capable to learn futher. Could you please help me to find tools to analyse HH and set of statistical analyses already existing. I suppose, you have done this research that lead you to your so strong non-rigged position.
In this instance the tools I was refering to are maths and stats tools. What you need is a good probability text and a good stats text.
It's no good looking at the output of programs if you don't understand the underlying maths theory.
I think even the most commited 'tard would change his position if he really
understood the maths. As it is (for example) they just see some numbers, get annoyed that people are saying things that don't support their paraniod rantings and start shouting: 'shill'.
Quote:
Please, point me to some samples of this logic and evidence that indicate it is cosher. That is exactly what I look for to ease my mind. This is kindly request, not polemic!
There is a great deal in this thread.
Just back up until you see the 'tards shouting shill.
A few posts above that there is usually a fairly serious piece of logical argument or some probability explanations.
Quote:
Questioning something obviouse is evidence of ******ness.
Actually, that isn't true.
It's not the actual questioning that's ******ed.
It's the continued belief that an accepted idea is incorrect when all available evidence supports that idea.
For example, there was nothing stupid about questioning the idea that the world is flat particularly when such evidence as was available was not one sided.
There would be a gread deal more stupidity involved in questioning the approximately spherical nature of the planet now as there are vast amounts of evidence that is is, indeed, roughly 3 dimensionally round.