You know, you refuse to accept MrWookie specifically stated the website methodology, and not about a specific stat, and are lying about that context. I honestly don't know how you could dispute that.

I know it's a bit premature, but I'd like to nominate this thread for "Best of 2+2", we all know it's only a matter of time.

Voted 5 stars.

The only people who care about this thread are the narcissists, the codependents and the flying monkeys.

Which one do you self-identify as again?

We've been over this last night. You pointed out how important context is, remember?

Right, changing the context is bad, let's not change the context. And what was the context of you citing mynamestats.com?

Right, it was for racial name data. And why did Wookie ask you about the methodology?

Right: you disputed the methodology of the paper you cited (about racial name data), so Wookie asked about the methodology of the site you liked better (for racial name data).

The context of this entire conversation about mynamestats.com was about racial name data. You only started pretending otherwise when you realized that you had faceplanted for the 12th time in a row, and cited some random, bogus website that was your first hit on Google because you were so eager to distance yourself from faceplant #11, the scholarly research you cited in this very thread that all of a sudden you didn't like so much when it made you look dumb. Now here we are, on approximately #17, after you've told several more lies about posts in this thread that anyone can go back and read (my favorite was probably this one, where you lied and pretended you had cited other data from mynamestats.com, before being forced to admit it came from a different website. That was hilarious!).

"not". Ring a bell? "liked better"? You just made that up.

My entire point about methodologies was that none of them are valid, as they have not been rigorously tested.

Yes or no, does that website use SSA data in their methodology?

The answer is yes.

I'll let our neutral fact-finder flying money friend sort out whether I "made it up" or not. You've proven to be an extremely unreliable and emotional narrator on the subject.

Wow....can't argue against facts, huh?

There is no reasonable interpretation that would read this:

and think I like one methodology over another.

I starting to feel rather underpaid for this role.

You're making no sense. You liked the racial name data you found on mynamestats.com more than the racial name data in the scholarly paper you previously cited. You said the methodology of that paper wasn't up to par. Wookie asked about the methodology of the site you liked better. Then you lied about it. Then you lied some more, like about the source of other data you posted, to try to cover up your previous lies.

That's why they call you "flying money"!

No, what I actually said was:

"..including that paper." If you can't infer that means all methodologies so far, there is simply no common ground with you. You are manipulating again. You can't reasonably argue that I was only talking about that one paper.




No, he did not ask about what I liked better. He asked about what methodology the site uses, I went to the site and saw they used SSA and answered.

I quoted for you, in its entirety, the website's own description of its methodology! It is not just relaying SSA info as you claimed!

I did not say "just".

I mean to get the owanage you are looking for, you all keep having to inject ****.

LOL. Classic IHIV! Dude is sitting here, constantly crying that other people can't accurately quote him when he's not even capable of reading their posts correctly lolol

Another lie. I asked you what their more rigorous methodology was, since you disputed the methodology of the scholarly paper that you originally cited, and now trusted more mynamestats.com. You had clearly made a value judgment about the quality of the respective methods.

No, I did not say I trusted that website more.

You guys keep making **** up.

Hahahaha! You trusted it less than the paper that made you look dumb, but posted it anyway? That's the story you're going with to try to wriggle out of the pretzel you've found yourself in? LOL

JFC, my entire point was methodologies were flawed when it came to identifying racial connotations with names, and you all derailed it in to this ****. You think there is some big gotcha by attacking the methodology of the website?

Well done, bro.

Another lie! You posted that data because you believed it:



LOL

All the manic posting in the 40 minutes since you said this is really serving to demonstrate how much you don't care.

...

Before this derail, I explicitly stated the methodology for names was flawed.

You've created a false dichotomy of trust, and you've conflated two arguments. I don't trust any of them. With that said, knowing it's an Arabic name, and knowing it's really an uncommon name, and knowing there is a decent sized arab-american population, and the website did not identify arab as a distinct group, it's seems likely Jamal is would have more white (as in white including Arabs) people with the name. That does not mean I trust the websites methodology.

Perfect.

Hang on, did you mean that this is you? I'm guessing it must be, since I know goofy and Wookie are the narcissists, and I'm "Flying Money" (cool nick, btw, thx bro). Makes sense, actually.