When insults had class.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » July 20th, 2009, 11:09 am

Rabbit wrote:Wow, we just learned about Disraeli today...ironic.

And what, may I ask, did you learn?

panthersix · Post by **panthersix** » July 20th, 2009, 11:55 am

That there's lies, then there's damn lies, then there's Statistics!

Jim · Post by **Jim** » July 20th, 2009, 12:33 pm

panthersix wrote:That there's lies, then there's damn lies, then there's Statistics!

Actually, that's from Mark Twain.

DrD · Post by **DrD** » July 20th, 2009, 12:48 pm

panthersix wrote:That there's lies, then there's damn lies, then there's Statistics!

I love that quote!!!! Such a fav...

:D

Shana

panthersix · Post by **panthersix** » July 20th, 2009, 12:59 pm

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and later popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

panthersix · Post by **panthersix** » July 20th, 2009, 1:00 pm

DrD wrote:
panthersix wrote:That there's lies, then there's damn lies, then there's Statistics!
I love that quote!!!! Such a fav... :D

Shana

At least now we're sure you're not an Engineer :)

DrD · Post by **DrD** » July 20th, 2009, 1:22 pm

panthersix wrote: At least now we're sure you're not an Engineer :)

No. I am not an engineer. Not a stats person either... but I do enjoy the quote immensely. Plus the faces the stats folks make when one pokes a little fun are *priceless....*

Shana

Oto-Man · Post by **Oto-Man** » July 20th, 2009, 1:26 pm

Jim wrote:
Rabbit wrote:Wow, we just learned about Disraeli today...ironic.
And what, may I ask, did you learn?

Pop.....

wait for it................

corn.

panthersix · Post by **panthersix** » July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

DrD wrote:
panthersix wrote: At least now we're sure you're not an Engineer :)
No. I am not an engineer. Not a stats person either... but I do enjoy the quote immensely. Plus the faces the stats folks make when one pokes a little fun are *priceless....*

Shana

I know that most Rangers are more than one standard deviation from the norm.....for whatever it is your trying to crunch.

DrD · Post by **DrD** » July 20th, 2009, 1:46 pm

panthersix wrote:
DrD wrote:
panthersix wrote: At least now we're sure you're not an Engineer :)
No. I am not an engineer. Not a stats person either... but I do enjoy the quote immensely. Plus the faces the stats folks make when one pokes a little fun are *priceless....*

Shana
I know that most Rangers are more than one standard deviation from the norm.....for whatever it is your trying to crunch.

Ranger panthersix;

Indeed. Unless you take into account the psych op profiling and brain mapping that has been done on you guys as a Bayesian prior. Then, you would find that you are straight down the middle on expected behavior.

But, I digress.

We are going a slightly unusual way for this project. I sent you something to explain.

Cheers;
Shana

Rock Island Ranger · Post by **Rock Island Ranger** » July 20th, 2009, 3:15 pm

DrD wrote:
Ranger panthersix;

Indeed. Unless you take into account the psych op profiling and brain mapping that has been done on you guys as a Bayesian prior. Then, you would find that you are straight down the middle on expected behavior.

But, I digress.

We are going a slightly unusual way for this project. I sent you something to explain.

Cheers;
Shana

Id say 90% of that which you seek is historical interpretation and 10% current opinion which in reality means that you are now dealing with 80% opinion based on 20% fact. Statistcally speaking, you have a 50% chance of presenting anything that is 50% worth a damn. Jes sayin....statistically speaking of course.......

DrD · Post by **DrD** » July 20th, 2009, 3:25 pm

Rock Island Ranger wrote:
Id say 90% of that which you seek is historical interpretation and 10% current opinion which in reality means that you are now dealing with 80% opinion based on 20% fact. Statistcally speaking, you have a 50% chance of presenting anything that is 50% worth a damn. Jes sayin....statistically speaking of course.......

Statistically speaking, we can create a set of complete BS that irrefutable.

Shana

Rock Island Ranger · Post by **Rock Island Ranger** » July 20th, 2009, 3:30 pm

DrD wrote:
Rock Island Ranger wrote:
Id say 90% of that which you seek is historical interpretation and 10% current opinion which in reality means that you are now dealing with 80% opinion based on 20% fact. Statistcally speaking, you have a 50% chance of presenting anything that is 50% worth a damn. Jes sayin....statistically speaking of course.......
Statistically speaking, we can create a set of complete BS that irrefutable.

Shana

Statisically speaking, we have already done that for you. Because statisically speaking Rangers are 72% more full of shit than those of who do not take psych profiling and brain mapping.

DrD · Post by **DrD** » July 20th, 2009, 3:51 pm

You are awesome, Ranger Rock Island Ranger!!

Rock Island Ranger · Post by **Rock Island Ranger** » July 20th, 2009, 4:31 pm

DrD wrote:

You are awesome, Ranger Rock Island Ranger!!

Well....

statistically speaking...................you are 100% correct.

ArmyRanger.com

When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.

Re: When insults had class.