oh really?

Post #229,828 by boxley 10/17/05 12:36:56 PM Reply	oh really? For instance you've misunderstood anecdotal again. The article is based on information about a directive that has been handed down, not a few incidents. about a supposed directive,the article reported. Substitute article for posting, since that is what it is, a link to a post. from dictionary.com 1. also an\ufffdec\ufffddot\ufffdic (-dtk) or an\ufffdec\ufffddot\ufffdi\ufffdcal (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes. 2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: \ufffdThere are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems\ufffd (C. Claiborne Ray). note the "rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" now please explain why a posting of an alleged directive by a antipathic interest group meets the above test. Only in your mind that the weight of a posting you agree with has more weight than one you do not. However that is subjective not statistical proof. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #229,881 by ben_tilly 10/17/05 5:45:52 PM Reply	"Based on casual observations..." What that is getting at is that anecdotes are interesting stories, and judging based on anecdotal evidence is judging based on a few specific stories of incidents. The post in question is not based on a scattering of incidents. It is based on someone's interpretation of a directive that is claimed to exist. This is, therefore, not anecdotal evidence. That doesn't mean that it is right. Nor are theories based on anecdotal evidence necessarily wrong. We calls something anecdotal based on the kind of evidence used, not the quality of that evidence or the accuracy of the conclusion. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #229,896 by boxley 10/17/05 8:53:44 PM Reply	wrong its based on an interesting story about a document that may or may not exist, if it wasnt an intersting story you wouldnt have posted it. Now if the link had refered to a published statute on a .gov site it would have been a news fact, as it is its an interesting story. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #230,000 by ben_tilly 10/18/05 6:51:27 PM Reply	This is the end of the line for me Plus you are dodging the question of your own misuses of the term. In short, anecdotal arguments are ones that apply inductive reasoning from haphazardly collected examples (which may or may not be verifiable). Therefore your attempt to characterize the Parks department based on the actions of one ranger was clearly anecdotal. And the attempt in the original article to deduce the consequences of a purported directive was not. I don't care whether you understand or agree with this characterization. This is how I understand the language, and I have no percentage in correcting you further, or in trying to get you to admit that your example was anecdotal despite your claim that it wasn't anecdotal. Feel free to follow up in any way that you want. I won't bother responding. Regards, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #230,046 by boxley 10/19/05 10:10:52 AM Reply	read me in my posts [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=229735\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=229735] "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #230,102 by Ashton 10/19/05 4:19:50 PM Reply	And you are (still) arguing 'credibility' of a datum, while he was explaining 'categories' of er, data.

Welcome to IWETHEY!