Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Follies who wrote (87147)	2/13/2012 12:09:13 AM
From: Joseph Silent	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218880

That seems to be exactly what your nature is. To you perhaps, because you have chosen not to understand events from the start. MQ has a pattern, as bart has recognized. I don't get your point. MQ made two statements, one of which completely subsumes the other, and MQ admits to that. MQ took some time to recognize the blunder, and even so, still put on his best weasel suit. Suppose MQ says "It is highly likely it will rain next week in Bora Bora", followed by "it is certain to rain next week in Bora Bora". Both you and the National Enquirer may be interested in polling all the people on the face of the earth to determine how many agree and how many disagree. Let's say that, through standard sampling methodology, your sample gives you a probability estimate of 0.9. What does that number tell you? Will it rain? Will it not rain? Can you answer that question for me? By asking me if I agree or disagree, you are doing this National Enquirer poll. Suppose I said I agree with probability .9, or 0.99. What does it have to do with whether there is an eruption or not? Whether this has to do with rain in Bora Bora, or an eruption in place X, *your first task as a scientist is to establish methodology. Not opinion!* Forgive me if I don't care about invented opinion. I'd like to know how you got there. What if you ran around in your underwear at midnight and decided there would be an eruption only if you rammed into a tree, and no eruption otherwise? That would not be good for you or for the scientific method. You may love opinion. Science does not, except in special cases. All this is independent of whether the event does or does not occur.