Stupid World

**bogan** · 25th November 2016, 20:30

Originally Posted by mashman

@removal of context to make the point of others fit your narrative. Bravo.

That which was removed illustrated the point. Stop focusing so much on what you think you know and think we don't know, and instead focus on spreading that knowledge (which would be done without the use of 'you' 'I' 'me' 'us' 'we' etc). The idea that you've been where me and Ocean are so have a better understanding of shit than we do is fucking absurd; either show better or don't, the notion that you can simply know better is laughable.

**Ocean1** · 25th November 2016, 20:33

Originally Posted by mashman

Well, according to one of the most respected NZ statisticians and a statistician, who ironically worked on the motorcycle ACC debacle, they agree that the statistics are indeed best guess and not factual. That and that the data sets need to be prepared before analysis so that they don't break the calculation being used. Love your paraphrasing mind... although they make you look like an ignorant twat

I'm not a dole bludger, so no, not just dole bludgers. And no one said it was impossible. Such a negative bias you have. I'm surprised bogan hasn't chastised you for it... no, wait, I'm not surprised in the slightest. Perhaps once he dribbled you down his chin he'll speak up.

Shows how ill equipped you are to deal with things in general then.

You forgetting proves that you can't assimilate new knowledge. No real surprises there. As such me repeating the process is likely to result in the same outcome. Find it yourself or carry on spouting your usual incorrect facts. I doubt anyone would notice the difference.

Reference? 'Cause I'm pretty sure no statistician aver said that numbers weren't facts, sounds more like your illiterate interpretation of something completely different.

Didn't say you were. And I know it's not impossible, like most people I do it every day, it's just workshy fuckwits that deny that work fixes poverty.

Not at all, charity is the least of my attributes, I reserve it for those like you, who are, in fact ill equiped for things in general. God knows you need all the charity you can get.

Failure to back up shit yet again. I'm shocked.

**Katman** · 25th November 2016, 20:34

Originally Posted by bogan

The idea that you've been where me and Ocean are......

That's adorable.

**mashman** · 25th November 2016, 20:45

Originally Posted by bogan

That which was removed illustrated the point. Stop focusing so much on what you think you know and think we don't know, and instead focus on spreading that knowledge (which would be done without the use of 'you' 'I' 'me' 'us' 'we' etc). The idea that you've been where me and Ocean are so have a better understanding of shit than we do is fucking absurd; either show better or don't, the notion that you can simply know better is laughable.

That's what you went looking for. Not me. I'll spread the knowledge with whoever I choose. I can't help what you can't accept or that which you find incredulous. Tis all down to you.

**mashman** · 25th November 2016, 20:49

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Reference? 'Cause I'm pretty sure no statistician aver said that numbers weren't facts, sounds more like your illiterate interpretation of something completely different.

Didn't say you were. And I know it's not impossible, like most people I do it every day, it's just workshy fuckwits that deny that work fixes poverty.

Not at all, charity is the least of my attributes, I reserve it for those like you, who are, in fact ill equiped for things in general. God knows you need all the charity you can get.

Failure to back up shit yet again. I'm shocked.

It was a couple of conversations that were had. You being pretty sure doesn't change the fact that it was said.

Now it's workshy and not just dole bludgers

. Make yer mind up.

I appreciate that. Save it for someone that needs it though.

Still doesn't change the fact that you commented on it and then forgot it. I have no need to refresh your addled mind.

**Ocean1** · 25th November 2016, 20:58

Originally Posted by mashman

It was a couple of conversations that were had. You being pretty sure doesn't change the fact that it was said.

Now it's workshy and not just dole bludgers

. Make yer mind up.

I appreciate that. Save it for someone that needs it though.

Still doesn't change the fact that you commented on it and then forgot it. I have no need to refresh your addled mind.

More failure to back your shit up. I'm shocked. I'm also absolutely certain that no actual mathematician ever said numbers weren't facts.

As if there was a difference.

As well you should, you've got fuck all else going for you.

And yet more failure to back shit up. Nevermind, you were obviously wrong, again, I'd have def remembered it that wasn't the case.

**mashman** · 25th November 2016, 21:08

Originally Posted by Ocean1

More failure to back your shit up. I'm shocked. I'm also absolutely certain that no actual mathematician ever said numbers weren't facts.

As if there was a difference.

As well you should, you've got fuck all else going for you.

And yet more failure to back shit up. Nevermind, you were obviously wrong, again, I'd have def remembered it that wasn't the case.

I was talking about the method of deriving those numbers. The FACT that those numbers come with a margin of error should be a give away. That the margin of error isn't always published doesn't mean there isn't one. the conversation with the statistician arose when I queried why I was setting up his calculation data set to exclude some of the data. Be as shocked as you like, but you now have new knowledge to consider... or not as is most likely going to be the case. Your choice entirely.

Awesome comeback bro.

I know. Such a drag being me.

Aha, of course you would have remembered. Best of luck with yer dementia.

**Ocean1** · 26th November 2016, 08:39

Originally Posted by mashman

I was talking about the method of deriving those numbers. The FACT that those numbers come with a margin of error should be a give away. That the margin of error isn't always published doesn't mean there isn't one. the conversation with the statistician arose when I queried why I was setting up his calculation data set to exclude some of the data. Be as shocked as you like, but you now have new knowledge to consider... or not as is most likely going to be the case. Your choice entirely.

Oh OK, it's a FACT that someone has counted all the poor dudes but because he's "DERIVED" the comparison to the number of poor dudes a decade ago by using a description based on mathematically proven statistical methodology it's no longer fact? And this is the "knowledge" upon which you claim you can ignore what the rest of the world accepts as an unambiguous statement of fact is it?

You never passed school C maths, did you?

So tell me dude, if the number of poor represented the way the rest of the world understands it is half of what it was and the margin of error is 0.5% is it not a FACT that the number of poor is reduced to no more than 50.5% of what it was?

By the way, the rest of the world accepts the fact that since 1980, when the number of poor was 45% of the world's population, it's now dropped to 10%. What difference does you margin of error make there?

**mashman** · 26th November 2016, 09:32

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Oh OK, it's a FACT that someone has counted all the poor dudes but because he's "DERIVED" the comparison to the number of poor dudes a decade ago by using a description based on mathematically proven statistical methodology it's no longer fact? And this is the "knowledge" upon which you claim you can ignore what the rest of the world accepts as an unambiguous statement of fact is it?

You never passed school C maths, did you?

So tell me dude, if the number of poor represented the way the rest of the world understands it is half of what it was and the margin of error is 0.5% is it not a FACT that the number of poor is reduced to no more than 50.5% of what it was?

By the way, the rest of the world accepts the fact that since 1980, when the number of poor was 45% of the world's population, it's now dropped to 10%. What difference does you margin of error make there?

If there is a margin of error, there in no fact. Just best guess. The guess may be really really close to the actual number, but it is still best guess. I actually claim bullshit for the reason that the measure is financial and that that financial measure is calculated using GDP and other assorted averages from multiple "cleansed" data sets in order to come up with the number you claim as fact. That people don't actually receive that money is irrelevant. shift the value, claim victory via statistics and pass it on to be consumed by morons. Pretty standard practice. It's a fact that your numbers are manipulated to give the result required and not necessarily represent the actual. The actual being quite important. Anyway, your condition has been diagnosed. Have fun dear.

Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

**mashman** · 26th November 2016, 10:14

Here's a test. Spot the bullshit based on data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Don't give the game away too quickly

**Ocean1** · 26th November 2016, 10:45

Originally Posted by mashman

If there is a margin of error, there in no fact. Just best guess. The guess may be really really close to the actual number, but it is still best guess. I actually claim bullshit for the reason that the measure is financial and that that financial measure is calculated using GDP and other assorted averages from multiple "cleansed" data sets in order to come up with the number you claim as fact. That people don't actually receive that money is irrelevant. shift the value, claim victory via statistics and pass it on to be consumed by morons. Pretty standard practice. It's a fact that your numbers are manipulated to give the result required and not necessarily represent the actual. The actual being quite important. Anyway, your condition has been diagnosed. Have fun dear.

Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

Right, every financial reporting and social advocacy organisation on the planet with multiple agendas and totally different political objectives is "manipulating" the massively improved poverty data in order to get exactly the same result, so they're wrong and you're right.

And I'm the fact resistant one.

Btw, you can ignore the inconvenient questions, nobody will notice.