Sandman
In article <m2s9l9hrhcn9u81cvvv6h3e191efrgsq9i@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
Please explain why.

Sandman
Because "a single data point" isn't statistics. You have to have more than one data point for it to be statistics, and then one single data point of those many data points become important.

Eric Stevens
Just repeating your claim but in different words doesn't do anything to prove it.

Sandman
I didn't repeat it, I explained it further. Statistics is the art of analyzing data, data requires more than one data point. You can't analyze the number "24" in any way, so you can't create statistics out of that data.

Eric Stevens
You have no understanding of what is meant either by 'statistics' or 'data'.

Sandman
Incorrect.

My paragraph went on with an analogy that explained this further, but you cut in with the above statement in the middle of it, pretending that the other part didn't exist:

Eric Stevens
I wasn't commenting on the second part. Surely even you could tell that?

Sandman
Yet you claimed I was repeating myself, when the paragraph which you interjected was longer and in no way a repeat of something I had said earlier.

Eric Stevens
I still think you don't know much about statistics.

Sandman
What you "think" is of no consequence to me, Eric. You are free to think whatever foolish things you want.

Eric Stevens
When you can give evidence that you have learned anything significant about statistics I might try to enter into a discussion with you.

Sandman
You haven't been able to "discuss" anything for a long time, Eric. I won't hold my breath for that to ever happen.

It is obvious that you have no leg to stand on, so you're just trying diversin tactics instead of countering my statements with facts or logic. So far, all you have done is made empty claims about what I "know" about statistics, while at the same time offered not one single thing to counter my claims and statements from your supposed vast knowledge about statistics (*snicker*).