comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 19 minutes ago
Well, we now know you're arguing about something entirely different - it just shows you are still missing the point entirely.

I'm arguing with you about your opinion. I think it's ridiculous, yes. But you are entitled to it.

What I'm arguing with you about it that throughout this thread you have tried to dismiss and ridicule LVG's comments as flawed, not credible etc etc.

This is incorrect.

His comments are not flawed, and they are credible. This was shown to you in the discussion about statistical outliers.

Now, will you have the decency to admit your error?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is in your head,

my next response to you is here

"Winston, regardless of whether this is Chelsea related or not, it is laughable, picking and choosing stats to drop or include is going to attract ridicule."

It did.

Now if you can find the post that has caused you so much angst we can see if we can make a happy Winston.

JFDI (U1657)

Are you now denying that you said his comments were flawed and not credible?

No wonder you have so many problems.

If I did, show me were, I have deliberately tried to avoid discussing his comments.

JFDI (U1657)

If I did?

Well before we do that - are you still in agreement with yourself that his comments were 'flawed' and not credible?

You seem rather unsure.

It probably caqnt be referred to as a statiscal outlier if that one stat accounts for 1/10 of the data available

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 49 seconds ago
JFDI (U1657)

If I did?

Well before we do that - are you still in agreement with yourself that his comments were 'flawed' and not credible?

You seem rather unsure.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I stand behind my original statement, anything else has been part of a discussion and mostly in answer to your questions. Let's see what was said.

Blarmy - I must be the only Brit that actually likes foreigners (U14547)

To be honest, if we just use our common sense, we've all done this haven't we?

"the referee had a decent game apart from the handball he missed"

It's a very normal thing to do.

It was using Chelsea as a marker that I think is what got people wetting themselves with excitement.

But that aside, JFDI was wrong to call his comments flawed.

JFDI (U1657)

Why are you avoiding it?

It's a straightforward question: Do you think what LVG said is flawed?

You did 3 days ago, so I don't see why you're having so much trouble now.

And just for the avoidance of doubt, it is specifically these comments that I have always been referring to when calling you wrong. Perhaps if you'd taken your head out of your backside for 2 minutes, you might have seen it.

If this is what your issue is then yes, they are flawed from a factual perspective, or even an alternative perspective.

JFDI (U1657)

And how are they flawed, exactly?

Remember the statistical outlier points made to you, as proof of why it isn't remotely flawed.

Oh lets not forget in the 'not credible' point.

We have established a credible interpretation, have we not?

Flawed means not perfect, the statement is far from perfect as it manipulates fact.

If it wasn't flawed it would be credible.

There is a credible explanation if you choose to ignore the flaw(s) but I do not.

The outlier points I made failed as I intended them to, why? Because they are flawed in the same way that LVG's were.

Winnie, this is what LVG meant isn't it (not '1)' as I'd said earlier) :

2) 'Our defence is as good as Chelsea's, that Leicester result is an anomaly'

JFDI (U1657)

No, flawed means having a fundamental imperfection i.e. there is a specific thing wrong with it.

It is not flawed.

There is nothing flawed about the principle of statistical outliers, and as has been pointed out to you, LVG's comments are an example of using statistical outliers.

Now, remember when I said you can't admit you're wrong?

Here we are.

You couldn't even remember what you'd written. Embarrassing.

Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)

What he meant is a matter of opinion, but personally I think the suggestion that's what he meant is laughable.

I don't think he meant anything of the sort.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Jud_Danger (U10967)

You are a funny one.

You came on here, tried to be clever, messed it up and now you're left with silly comments that have no relevance to the discussion.

Let me know if you want to have another go, and sorry for your first attempt didn't work out very well for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you

If I was trying to be clever I'd have read the article, or the 300+ comments and actually tried to be clever...I was merely passing an hour or 2 of conference calls by jumping in to an argument and simply picking a side

No need to apologise...and I appreciate the opportunity to have another go, but you have proved to be a far superior person on every level and I would be foolish to once again try and pretend to know or care what you are talking about

Again my most sincere apologies for this xxx

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
JFDI (U1657)

No, flawed means having a fundamental imperfection i.e. there is a specific thing wrong with it.

It is not flawed.

There is nothing flawed about the principle of statistical outliers, and as has been pointed out to you, LVG's comments are an example of using statistical outliers.

Now, remember when I said you can't admit you're wrong?

Here we are.

You couldn't even remember what you'd written. Embarrassing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Winston, Flawed means having a weakness or imperfection, the accusation can be levelled at that he said because he chose elements to ignore, that is a weakness or imperfection because others could and have choosen to view the same stats differently or question the validity of making such a statement at all.

Jud_Danger (U10967)

You tried to pick me up on a comment, made a fool of yourself and then just started posting like a child.

Better luck next time.

I do think that if you are allowed to have the Leicester game classified as an outlier because its not representative of how the defence has generally performed we could say the same about the Everton game. That being the case then LVG's argument is less cogent

JFDI (U1657)

You're missing the word 'fundamental' from your definition.

Jeez, this is desperate.

You're now trying to amend the definition of the word 'flawed', just to avoid admitting your error.

This is unbelievable.

What LVG said was not flawed - you were wrong. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.

Blarmy - I must be the only Brit that actually likes foreigners (U14547)

I agree and have said all along I actually disagree with his general point - I think our defence has been poor.

But as a statement, what he said was perfectly logical most certainly not flawed.

If its a matter of coherence then yeah there was nothing wrong with what he said it just isnt convincing.

Not at all, chuck in fundamental if you like, it is fundamental after all that my view means taking into account all goals.

If what LVG said is not flawed are you claiming it to be perfect?

JFDI (U1657)

'Perfect'

An inappropriate description of something like this - it is open to all sorts of misinterpretation.

What he said, from a logic perspective, is perfectly sound. The principle that the defence has performed okay/well (using the best team in the league as a marker) except for one game is absolutely credible. Not remotely flawed.

Do I agree with him? Nope.

Doesn't mean what he said is flawed though - and there's a big difference between criticising a comment and calling it flawed.

Blarmy - I must be the only Brit that actually likes foreigners (U14547)

Agreed - I think most of us know United have been shoddy defensively this year.