Classic and textbook Veghead.. Make it sound technical, but explain nothing. It gives the shape of an explanation without the substance of one. Basically, what he said was " it is survivorship bias because survivorship bias things are happening."Because the Population features the specific characteristic required to give rise to the sampling error in question.
Poor @Blackvegetable . Here comes his victim mentality and lies.Vegas » 05 Apr 2026, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑ After 6 months of proudly displaying his accolades of Olympic and elite level of cowardice acts, he finally collected his gold medal.
He needed to defend why the answer was C. As expected, he failed miserably.
Here was his response:
Classic and textbook Veghead.. Make it sound technical, but explain nothing. It gives the shape of an explanation without the substance of one. Basically, what he said was " it is survivorship bias because survivorship bias things are happening."
Thank you for the Victorian cloud of abstraction,, while saying almost nothing.So, though he finally answered accordingly, he has proven that he still has no **** idea of the meaning of survivorship bias.
- It never identifies the population.
- It never identifies the sample.
- It never explains who is missing.
- It never shows how the missing cases distort the conclusion.
I would only need to do so if explaining it to an idiot who couldn't readily identify either.Vegas » 05 Apr 2026, 11:31 am » wrote: ↑ After 6 months of proudly displaying his accolades of Olympic and elite level of cowardice acts, he finally collected his gold medal.
He needed to defend why the answer was C. As expected, he failed miserably.
- It never identifies the population.
- It never identifies the sample.
Blackvegetable » 05 Apr 2026, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑ I would only need to do so if explaining it to an idiot who couldn't readily identify either.
Had you told me I would be "defending" it to someone suffering the intellectual wages of small pool breeding, I would have drawn pictures.
No....one is a consequence of the other..
intelligence explains itself. Hauteur merely announces itself.Blackvegetable » 05 Apr 2026, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑ No....one is a consequence of the other..
You have it backwards...
Intelligence informs hauteur....in its absence you have the empty delusional bleating of ****...Vegas » 05 Apr 2026, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑ intelligence explains itself. Hauteur merely announces itself.
By your theory, every arrogant man must be profound...including Trump. How does that suit you?
You keep trying to pass venom off as intellect. It is an old fraud. Snakes also hiss; no one mistakes it for philosophy.Blackvegetable » 05 Apr 2026, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑ Intelligence informs hauteur....in its absence you have the empty delusional bleating of ****...
No...you are now paying the figurative wages of your delusion, volume and noxiously low breeding.Vegas » 05 Apr 2026, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑ You keep trying to pass venom off as intellect. It is an old fraud. Snakes also hiss; no one mistakes it for philosophy.
You keep replacing thought with theater. That was a lot of hostility for so little reasoning.Blackvegetable » 05 Apr 2026, 1:39 pm » wrote: ↑ No...you are now paying the figurative wages of your delusion, volume and noxiously low breeding.
Check those cankles...
Fight those prepositions...it's more appropriately scaled to your means.
Vegas » 05 Apr 2026, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑ You keep replacing thought with theater. That was a lot of hostility for so little reasoning.
Blackvegetable » 05 Apr 2026, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑ you've been running your mouth...
Now you've been field dressed
says who?Vegas » 05 Apr 2026, 9:26 pm » wrote: ↑ “Field dressed” is an ambitious metaphor for someone who still hasn’t recovered the argument he dropped three comments ago.
Michael Cohen ain't sayin' much..
You go right to hiding behind a question.