Is Rolfe an expert regarding statistics in medicine?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Rolfe:Specificity is the percentage of positive results which are correct (i.e. identify an affected individual) and is the important parameter here. Sensitivity, on the other hand, is the percentage of negative results which are correct (i.e. identify an unaffected individual).

But according to this site (http://www.fpnotebook.com/PRE18.htm) , specificity is the percentage of healthy tested subjects that received an accurate (negative) test result.

Sensitivity, according to the same site, is the percentage of sick people that get accurate results (positive).

Rolfe also doesn't seem to understand what the term "accuracy" means in terms of a test, nor why this value is a constant only when the chance of a false positive result is the same as the chance of a false negative.

Many people repeated what Rolfe said, treating it as fact, because she's an "expert" who surely knew what she was talking about. Surely, on a skeptics' message board, people wouldn't blindly accept what they were told because it came from an "expert", right?

So: keeping in mind that Rolfe is a bona-fide veterinarian, who wrote a textbook on the subject, is Rolfe an expert on the subject of statistics in medicine?

[Rolfe]

Specificity is the percentage of positive results which are correct (i.e. identify an affected individual) and is the important parameter here. Sensitivity, on the other hand, is the percentage of negative results which are correct (i.e. identify an unaffected individual).Wrath, I can't go through all that thread to find that quote, I'll assume I said it. I know that is wrong. I could normally tell you that is wrong blindfold and with my hands tied behind my back.

Assuming I said it, my fingers were running faster than my brain.

And by the way, the book was not ghostwritten. However, I'm not an expert on medical statistics in general, just in the area of characterisation of laboratory tests. So vote "no" to that general question, I just did.

So you've just proved that if you sufficiently anger even someone knowledgeable about a subject, and then pose a vague and poorly-thought-out question, it's possible to get them to score an own goal.

Congratulations.

The question was still poorly thought out.

Rolfe.

[richardm]

You should get introduced to Lord Kenneth, Wrath. I think the pair of you would get on really well.

[richardm]

I've just had a look at your Planet X poll option. You really are an objectionable little ****, aren't you?

[Brian the Snail]

Jesus Christ, Wrath. Could you be any more of a prick?

Christ.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

We've more than adequately established that the question wasn't poorly thought out. It included all the information necessary to answer the question, and the scenario it described was perfectly plausible (if somewhat unusual for being more simple than normal).

We've been over the math several times. What problems are you asserting are in the question, Rolfe? Show them to us. You don't want to go over them again? It seems to me you've never really gone over them once - everything you brought up before has been shot down.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

For those of you who chose 'yes':

Why?

Rolfe became confused over several rudimentary statistical concepts, insisted that understanding general statistics didn't permit an understanding of "medical statistics" (which clearly don't use ideas like 'accuracy', 'false postives', 'false negatives', 'sample populations' and so forth), was unable to grasp a mathematical argument, and made seriously errors repeatedly.

Were you the people who repeated what she said as if it was fact, then attacked the people who claimed it was erroneous? Is that why you voted yes? To save your pride and reduce cognitive dissonance?

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For those of you who chose 'yes':

Why?

Rolfe became confused over several rudimentary statistical concepts, insisted that understanding general statistics didn't permit an understanding of "medical statistics" (which clearly don't use ideas like 'accuracy', 'false postives', 'false negatives', 'sample populations' and so forth), was unable to grasp a mathematical argument, and made seriously errors repeatedly.


If you understand stats why did you use the word "about"? I never ran accros it when I was doing stats. Is it a degree level term or something?

[garys_2k]

Wrath, you are clearly an idiot. Should I run a poll to demonstrate that?

[yersinia29]

Wrath you still dont get it.

There is not a single medical test known to man that has equal sensitivity and specificity values. Given that reality, statistics applied to medical testing never uses the term "accuracy" they use "sensitivity" and "selectivity."

Arguing that "accuracy" is a substitute for "sensitivity" and "selectivity" may be true in a strict mathematical sense. But I GUARANTEE YOU that if you had tried to publish a study using such language, your peer reviewers would have absolutely insisted that you change the language to use sensitivity and specificity instead of using the "accuracy" term to cover both definitions.

Whats strict in a mathematical sense and whats prudent to use as language in medical statistics are 2 different things.

[Suezoled]

Rolfe admits she is wrong about something: that's sexy.
Wrath refuses to let it die: that's not sexy.

[Hagrok]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For those of you who chose 'yes':

Why?


Just to irritate you, more or less.

--Dan

[Doubt]

I see no answer to this question that I would use. My own stats background does not give me enough information to judge who is right and who is wrong.

What I do see is a pole created by a person who uses personal attacks as a substitute for a rational argument. Wrath also makes accusations that he cannot back up. Calling someone a whore in an argument about math is at best a distraction. At worst, it is an attempt to avoid the issues.

That planet X option destroys any credibility you may have had, Wrath. Your personal vendetta will probably now extend to others here. You are very much like Lord Kenneth.

[JamesM]

Please, Wrath, knock it off.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There's more than enough rational argument buried in the original thread for anyone.

I've proven my point most successfully. Rolfe has had long enough to recant.

[Hellbound]

Hmmm...

There's no option for "At least she's more of an expert than Wrath, she understands percentages."

Oh well, guess I can't vote.

[athon]

I've already said this in a thread about Cynical, but I'll repeat it here because it's in a similar vein.

The adolescents I teach will go out of their way to find another individual to pick on. Rather than objecting to a particular issue, they'll wait until a conflict has died down and then bring up something irrelevant about each other to score points in an endless game of social ladder climbing.

The interesting thing is that those who are confident, well adjusted and at the top of the social pile often ignore, or better yet, concede defeat, in the face of childish enslaught.

Cynical was chasing Claus all over the board, which Claus stoically ignored. Here, Wrath has brought up some issue that has minor relevance (or could be addressed in a less inflammatory way) just to score ladder points against Rolfe.

Most people here have long matured to not need to play such games. Then again, some others must still have a need to prove to themselves against the world.

Athon

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wow and double holy crap! I am so tempted to do two things I've never done before: Start a poll and put someone on ignore.

Moderators: Can you issue some kind of award certificate for this thread?

~~ Paul

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
There's more than enough rational argument buried in the original thread for anyone.

I've proven my point most successfully. Rolfe has had long enough to recant.

Which point is it that you proved?

I don’t have a great stats background. I really don’t think most of us do. I see people arguing about definitions. Both have made mistakes. One likes to call the other names.

What is next Wrath? Going to talk about her parents next? You come off badly here. Something appears to be missing in your character. Do you know anything about Lord Kenneth?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by yersinia29
There is not a single medical test known to man that has equal sensitivity and specificity values.To be fair, I might find a couple in the 1991 November JAVMA, where there was a rash of FeLV and FIV test evaluations. Some of them were so bloody optimistic on so few patients that they somehow managed 100% for both.

If you only call it to two significant figures, sometimes you'll fluke the two the same. But it's just coincidence, and not noteworthy enough to define a completely new term for.

In fact the catch-all use of the word "accuracy" as a qualititive assessment of how good a set of relevant characteristics is, is how I've often encountered the word used in this context. As opposed to biochemistry and haematology, where it has a more defined meaning.

But in binary testing, the terms that are defined and useful are all derived as functions of
Number of patients who test true-negative
Number of patients who test true-positive
Number of patients who test false-positive
Number of patients who test false-negative
in the evaluation data-set.

Accuracy cannot be so defined, which is why it isnn't meaningful as a numerical expression.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by athon
(snipped)

Most people here have long matured to not need to play such games. Then again, some others must still have a need to prove to themselves against the world.

Athon

...oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Accuracy doesn't need to be "so defined" - it can be defined much more elegantly, when a certain set of circumstances apply, which they did.

Oh, I'm sure you're an expert, Rolfe. You're just not an expert in statistics.

You do terrible, painful things for money, but you give your patients what they need. You're highly educated in techniques and procedures, which you apply for maximum response. You wear your white coat proudly, but your favorite part is when they call you "Doctor". Your rates are high, but you charge what the market can bear. Sometimes even the facilities at the clinic are inadequate, but you make do. And your customers are almost always satisfied.

Isn't that right, Rolfe?

[Benguin]

Do all women have questionable virtue on your planet, or just the ones who don't smile and flutter their eyelashes when treated to your wisdom?

Forget the rational argument and stats, you clearly started this thread as an almighty Ad Hom.

Grow up man.

[steve74]

Wrath, did you seriously think that starting a thread to insult Rolfe would involve people insulting her? No, people just pointed out the obvious - namely that you are a complete f*cking w*nker of the highest order.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Hey Rolfe, I know some people who'd be interested in your services. How shall I refer them when they arrive in your country? Is there a head "doctor" who can arrange things, or do you make arrangements on a case-by-case basis?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Hmmm...

There's no option for "At least she's more of an expert than Wrath, she understands percentages."

Oh well, guess I can't vote.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't know if she is an expert, but I have concluded that she knows more about it than Wrath.

Now, given that he tries to pass himself off as some sort of expert on the matter, I guess that means she must be an expert, too.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
We've more than adequately established that the question wasn't poorly thought out.Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm (in the other thread)
In hindsight, the question would have been less open to misunderstanding if it had been worded differently.This seemed to me to be the closest Wrath was likely to come to shouting uncle on that one, but he's retracted it so often I thought I'd just post a reminder.

This thread has been going faster than I could interpret these lab tests people were paying me to actually do this afternoon, but it's hysterical.

I voted no. Wrath asked if I was an expert in medical statistics. This is a huge field, with its own departments at many universities. It covers epidemiology, the statistics of genetic disease, population heath-records, more then I can describe. I am most certainly not an expert in it. Though I am aware it exists, unlike Wrath until he was shown a few googled links yesterday!

I run a diagnostic lab. To do this I need close familiarity with the small area of medical statistics which involves the characterisation of diagnostic tests. It just so happens that the question Wrath chose is smack within my area of expertise. Even if I did drop the odd stitch while typing when I should be in bed. But this expertise does not qualify me to be described as an "expert in medical statistics" in the broad sense of the term.

Look, I was the first one to vote, and I voted no!

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
(snipped)
You do terrible, painful things for money, ....(snipped)

Isn't that right, Rolfe?

wow... I think we need an anti-venom treatment here folks.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The statistics used in medicine are not magically distinct from the wider field of mathematics. At most, some of the labels for concepts are different.

There is no such thing as "medical statistics" as a distinct entity. There is only statistics, some of which is used in the practice of medicine.

Rolfe claimed that since we weren't trained in "medical statistics", we didn't understand what was going on and we couldn't comprehend the errors in the presented scenario.

Isn't that right, Rolfe?

Could you explain for us again what "accuracy" means? What does "specificity" mean again, and how does its definition apply to the scenario?

Go on, tell us.

[athon]

Originally posted by Suezoled


...oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!

Cannot! Besides, you pick your nose and eat it!! I've seen you do it!!!

Athon
(I think this is almost as entertaining as Wrath's nonsense!)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by athon


Cannot! Besides, you pick your nose and eat it!! I've seen you do it!!!

Athon
(I think this is almost as entertaining as Wrath's nonsense!)

Well I have CANDY and you can't have any now!

[richardm]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Well I have CANDY and you can't have any now!

Can I have some? I'll be your best friend.

[athon]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Well I have CANDY and you can't have any now!

Fine. I already licked all the candy. And now you have cooties!

Cootie girl!! Cootie girl!! Suezoled is a cootie girl!!

Athon

[richardm]

Originally posted by athon


Fine. I already licked all the candy.

I don't want any now, Suez - thanks anyway.

[athon]

Originally posted by richardm


Can I have some? I'll be your best friend.

Richard and Suezy, sitting in a tree. K - I - SS - I - N -G....

Athon
(hey folks, I've got a million of them...)

[ceptimus]

This thread is a shame.

The other thread was interesting, and would have been even better without the insults. This one shouldn't even have been started (in my opinion, of course).

Please, quit with the attacks, and try to be civil to each other. Life's too short.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Could you explain for us again what "accuracy" means? What does "specificity" mean again, and how does its definition apply to the scenario?Well now, the things you come across if you do look at the other thread.Originally posted by yersinia29
Wrath you dumbass, specificity = TN/(TN+FP)Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Nope.

True negatives / real negatives gives the chance that the test will correctly identify a negative as a negative.:confused:

"Real negatives"? What's that? As distinct from "true negatives"?

Of course, "true-negative" is a defined term, as above, "real-negative" isn't. For reasons of avoiding confusion which you can probably guess at.

But Wrath likes making us assume things. So can we assume what he means? Maybe by "real negatives", he means unaffected individuals. People who don't actually have the lurgi, whether or not they tested negative or positive.

Well, let's be charitable and assume he did mean that, because if he did, it makes sense. Now, how do you define "people who really don't have the disease" according to the numbers listed above? Easy. It's the true-negatives (TN) plus the false-positives (FP).

Hey look, isn't that what Yersinia just said, but to which Wrath replied "Nope."?

Just a little demonstration that even the high and mighty can get their terms scrambled if they're posting too quickly.

Edited to add: I'm not deleting that, but I'm adding to it. Yersinia was wrong, what he just defined was sensitivity, not specificity. I think that's what Wrath actually meant. But rather than say that, he avoided the use of "sensitivity" at all, saying instead "the chance the test will correctly identify a negative as a negative" - which is actually sensitivity, yes, but why not say so? He also changed the way the definition was expressed, from a correct definition of "sensitivity" (erroneously called specificity) to an idiosyncratically-worded one. Thus confusing those who answered in the thread into saying, but Wrath, whatever you posted, that was the same definition twice, we think! :confused:

Yes, it was. What he'd changed was the left-hand side of the equation. But sort of not very obviously. And he'd switched right and left.

So, he was right? Yes, but expressed in such a way as to induce several people to call him as wrong (which he didn't challenge), and I only just noticed it.

Wrath, was there any more of an obfuscatory way to say, "no Yersinia, you just defined sensitivity, not specificity," and if there was, why didn't you use it?

Still too much too-fast posting, and not enough sleep.

I'm off on holiday.

Rolfe.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by athon


Fine. I already licked all the candy. And now you have cooties!

Cootie girl!! Cootie girl!! Suezoled is a cootie girl!!

Athon

No you didn't! They're in the baaagg still! And I don't have cooties. I put on my anti-coottie spray.

But you're meanie! I'm telllliiinnnggg!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by athon


Richard and Suezy, sitting in a tree. K - I - SS - I - N -G....

Athon
(hey folks, I've got a million of them...)

I do not! *pushes Richard into a rain puddle and runs away*

[garys_2k]

So we have Wrath who gets mixed up and resorts to personal insults in a lame poll, and Xanta over in the other thread who "debates" via spamming.

Nice lot of non-skeptics we have here, morons all.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Suezoled


I do not! *pushes Richard into a rain puddle and runs away*


Waaaaaaaaah! I'm tellin' Randi!

[geni]

Originally posted by Suezoled
But you're meanie! I'm telllliiinnnggg!

*points finger at Suezoled* telltail telltail

[geni]

Originally posted by richardm



Waaaaaaaaah! I'm tellin' Randi!

*points finger at Richard*

telltail telltail

[Benguin]

shouldn't that be "telltale"? you're not with your pussy cat friends now ...

[jj]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Jesus Christ, Wrath. Could you be any more of a prick?

Christ.

S/he'll try, count on it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's tattletale, you silly British gits.

~~ Paul

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The statistics used in medicine are not magically distinct from the wider field of mathematics. At most, some of the labels for concepts are different.

So, then, there is different, specialized language, so it's a distinct entity, made so by its specialized language, suited to the application at hand. In other words, a specialization on "medical statistics".

There is no such thing as "medical statistics" as a distinct entity.

But you just said there was, WOTS. Wots wrong? Can't make up your mind?

There is only statistics, some of which is used in the practice of medicine.

So, there's no difference between an INDSCAL distance rendering of 300 people's results on an MOS speech coder test and the specificity of a diagnostic procedure? They are both "only statistics"?

Get real. Like any other subject, especially when it comes to application, statistics has specialities. It's not "only statistics".

Rolfe claimed that since we weren't trained in "medical statistics", we didn't understand what was going on and we couldn't comprehend the errors in the presented scenario.

Rolfe said YOU don't understand. For some reason, I don't think Rolfe said that to me, it dcertainly didn't seem that way.

Isn't that right, Rolfe?

#sound_like_neil_young
Don't bring me down, that's only straw men burnin'

Could you explain for us again what "accuracy" means? What does "specificity" mean again, and how does its definition apply to the scenario?

Ahh, good show, you, like Ion, try to find something that you can represent as a mistake (Not being familiar with the medical terms, I have no idea if Rolfe slipped or not) and then you keep trying to make points with it.

Maybe you're better at it than Ion, (s/he/it didn't even manage to find a *real* mistake, and had to lie outright about the facts in my own profession) maybe you're not, but harping on a corrected misstatement is not going to convince me to trust your own behavior, to say the least. And harping on a corrected mis-statement is the BEST you can hope for.

I haven't forgotten your idiotic whinings about forum management either, where you demand that other people make full definition of an infinite field, but won't stand and deliver when somebody else asks YOU to do it.

Go on, tell us.
Yes, do tell us, why do you work so hard to discredit yourself?

[olaf]

i don't think she has a clue.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It's tattletale, you silly British gits.

~~ Paul

We use both, bubbles

[jj]

Originally posted by olaf
i don't think she has a clue.

Oh, look, Oaf comes through with the tag team! WOTS, about to hit the mat, manages to slap Oaf's hand, the crowd roars (or something)!

Olaugh, when you stop spouting your nonsense and show some real, hard data about, oh, say, your 100,000 medical doctors, somebody might pay attention to you, but as of now, you're seen very clearly as a nasty, vituperitive little whiner who cites articles that they haven't read, and copies the claims wholesale without understanding what the claims even are.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by olaf
i don't think she has a clue. OK, that's Xanta and me both voted "no". Own up, you other two!!!! :D

Rolfe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps so, but this forum is in America and it's our playground. You should use tattletale here. Well, of course, only if we don't use telltale. Do we?

Did I use gits correctly? It doesn't mean something horrible, does it?

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I understand Rolfe's claims quite well, which is why I've been challenging them since the threads began.

I'm a fool, but I say I'm a fool - and I can at least do simple math.

Dear Rolfe takes days to admit her errors, and she hasn't even admitted to the worst ones -and she can't even do simple math that she claims to be expert in.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Perhaps so, but this forum is in America and it's our playground. You should use tattletale here. Well, of course, only if we don't use telltale. Do we?


We used to have a rhyme when I were a lad that went:


Tell-tale tit
Your tongue shall be split
And all the little puppy-dogs
Shall have a little bit!

Has a cheery sort of Victorian feel to it. And I'm not that old, before you ask.


Did I use gits correctly?


Yes, spoken like a native*, although some pedantic gits will tell you it should be spelt "Gets".



*Not necessarily of Britain

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Could you explain for us again what "accuracy" means? What does "specificity" mean again, and how does its definition apply to the scenario?No, you're the one who claims to know what accuracy means. You tell us.

First in the context of the binary test, where all parameters have to be definable as some function of
1. Number of people without the disease who test negative (TN)
2. Number of people with the disease who test positive (TP)
3. Number of people without the disease who test positive (FP)
4. Number of people with the disease who test negative (FN)
in the evaluation study on which you are basing your characterisation statistics.

Only parameters definable in this way can have a meaning that will usefully describe any possible performance profile, and only parameters defined in this way are employed in this context.

Every paper or article on the basics of this opens with a list of such definitions. One was posted by Billy Joe (but I saw a couple of errors in the verbal descriptions, gosh better start a thread attacking BillyJoe now, so I won't repost it). However, none of these lists includes a definition of how to obtain a numerical value for "accuracy". They seem to have omitted it. Do fill in the omission, Wrath.

Or maybe you'd like to tell me how best to characterise the "accuracy" of a biochemistry method, where we don't have a binary output at all, we report concentrations over quite a wide range. Actually, accuracy is a term used in this context - indeed relied on. It's well understood, but there isn't a fully-agreed way to define it statistically. Perhaps Wrath would like to favour us with his views on how this problem should be approached?

Since he knows all about "accuracy", and how it can only mean one thing.

By the way, specificity = TP / (TP + FN). It describes the percentage of affected individuals who test positive.

And if I said something else, I didn't mean it.

Now just define accuracy that way, there's a good Wrath. 'Cos it's such a useful term, you know, and we know all the useful terms can be defined by some combination of these. And you don't get to use "if" or "when" either.

Rolfe.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I've already told you: it's the number of correct responses over the total number of responses.

Too complex for you? Why am I not surprised?

We're still waiting to see you take the presented data and twist them to say whatever you like. That was your main objection, the one you supported with the bad math and mislabeled concepts?

C'mon, Rolfe. Show us what you've got.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I've already told you: it's the number of correct responses over the total number of responses.And that is [I]so</> not in the desired format.

Rolfe.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Perhaps so, but this forum is in America and it's our playground. You should use tattletale here. Well, of course, only if we don't use telltale. Do we?

Did I use gits correctly? It doesn't mean something horrible, does it?

~~ Paul

Maybe ... but I reckon you don't know why I called you bubbles

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It doesn't matter whether it's in your desired format or not. The point is so simple, details of format shouldn't even matter.

So tell us: who really wrote that book? How many favors did the ghostwriters make you perform?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Rolfe


"Real negatives"? What's that? As distinct from "true negatives"?



Of course not. "Real negatives" are distinct from "integer negatives" in that real negatives are closed over division, while integer negatives aren't.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It doesn't matter whether it's in your desired format or not. The point is so simple, details of format shouldn't even matter.

So tell us: who really wrote that book? How many favors did the ghostwriters make you perform? W@nker.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For those of you who chose 'yes':

Why?


Simply to illustrate the idiocy of your poll. Seriously, Wrath, I thought YOU of all people would be above a popularity constest as an indicator of anything.

Who cares whether we all think Rolfe is an expert at anything? Will it in any way change whether Rolfe is in fact an expert at anything?

When you first came here, I thought you were smart, but a bit harsh. Which is cool, because so am I. However, my opinion of you has steadily declined as time goes by. You aren't here to learn. You aren't here to teach.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Oh, but you're wrong, scribble.

This poll is a perfect demonstration of how the majority of "skeptics" here made decisions made on their emotions and personal loyalties. If they don't like the person making an argument, they dismiss the argument.

Something like, what, 80% of the people say they think Rolfe is an expert, when she's made so made mistakes in basic math that all of her points are invalidated?

This isn't a forum of free-thinkers. This is a forum of people who like to believe they're on the right side.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
[B]Oh, but you're wrong, scribble.



Wrath, you should be smart enought o see that if I can vote out of sheer desire to show your poll is ridiculous, I might not be the onyl one to do so.

I don't know Rolfe. I don't like Rolfe. I couldn't tell you jack s**t about statistics, vetrenary medecine, or ghostwriting.

I can tell you voting "yes" in this poll was a decision I made to help you see the light. But ... apparently you're blind.

The poll is ridiculous, and anyone reading it would see it as I did - a stupid popularity contest. What you should be unsurprised about is that more people like Rolfe than you. You're an asshat; you have to make an effort to be disliked around here and you're going at it with gusto.

(edited to add: seventeen edits latr, and it starts to make sense. Hrm... I should post slower)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Precisely. People base their judgments on the people presenting them - the most liked one is presumed to be correct.

It doesn't matter how people vote. No matter what they think, Rolfe will still be an incompetent attention-seeking whore who baits people even dumber than she is so that she can make herself look smart.

You don't understand statistics, even to the rudimentary degree to which the thread in question deals with them. You don't know whether Rolfe has made egregious errors or not. You don't know whether her claims to be an expert in the use of statistics in medicine is contradicted by the mistakes she's made.

What you do know is that you like Rolfe, and you don't like me. Therefore you support Rolfe and attack me.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
You don't understand statistics, even to the rudimentary degree to which the thread in question deals with them. You don't know whether Rolfe has made egregious errors or not. You don't know whether her claims to be an expert in the use of statistics in medicine is contradicted by the mistakes she's made.So why on Earth did you ask us: 'Is Rolfe an expert regarding statistics in medicine?' :(

[Wrath of the Swarm]

To see which side people would be willing to defend.

Did you not understand what I had just said? The previous thread establishes that Rolfe isn't an expert in statistics, "medical" or otherwise.

So, would people be willing to admit that she's not what she said she was, or would they stick by her?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
To see which side people would be willing to defend.

Did you not understand what I had just said? The previous thread establishes that Rolfe isn't an expert in statistics, "medical" or otherwise.That's a bit hard to decide, since we 'don't understand statistics, even to the rudimentary degree to which the thread in question deals with them'.

I didn't vote. :)

Scrolling through the thread, however, it seems like Rolfe admitted he made a mistake .....

[Bjorn]

doble post

[Wrath of the Swarm]

She made multiple, linked mistakes. Not typos, not leaving something out accidentally in haste. Conceptual errors that made many of her statements completely unintelligible and invalidated every argument she made.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For those of you who chose 'yes':

Why?

*snip* Because I took a relative viewpoint. Since you started the poll, I valued Rolfe's contribution to the general knowledge here against yours. This made it an easy choice. Now, welcome to my ignore list (it's gettting crowded these days).

Hans

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
She made multiple, linked mistakes. Not typos, not leaving something out accidentally in haste. Conceptual errors that made many of her statements completely unintelligible and invalidated every argument she made.

Nonsense, WOTS, nonsense. Your original question was far from sufficient, and required a great deal of supposition, some of it pretty far out on a limb, in order to even have meaning.

This is just another "attack the opposition" thread in the manner of Ion or Rockook. In your case, it's not political opposition, it's over a scientific point that you lost long ago, so what, it's still a pure attack thread, and your the attacker. You lost the debates on statistics at the start, now you're trying to get even.

You're nothing but a bully, and not even a particularly effective one.

Now get back to "forum management" and start to follow up on some of the claims you made there. You claim that rules should be perfect, so it's up to you to PROVIDE A PERFECT RULE. Until you can, or at least show that one can exist (and disprove the Godel theorem in the process), you've nothing but your own empty insults to stand on.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Yes, Hans, I noticed you repeating Rolfe's statements without checking first to see if they were correct (they weren't).

Way to think skeptically, bro! (I wonder if Rolfe gives you a discount...)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by jj
Nonsense, WOTS, nonsense. Your original question was far from sufficient, and required a great deal of supposition, some of it pretty far out on a limb, in order to even have meaning. No, it wasn't. Do you need ceptimus to explain it to you again?

Don't even get me started on the Godel stuff. You *really* have no idea what you're talking about, now.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, it wasn't. Do you need ceptimus to explain it to you again?As I recall, Ceptimus agreed that an assumption was neccesary. He even reworded the question to eliminate the problem.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, he didn't.

Sheesh, go read the last page of the thread. Ceptimus clearly states his conclusion.

[geni]

Originally posted by Martin
As I recall, Ceptimus agreed that an assumption was neccesary. He even reworded the question to eliminate the problem.

He did a second rewording with regrds to the percentage as well.

[geni]

Ok Wrath of the Swarm lets see you defend your actions now.

http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=6&TopicID=1388&PagePosition=1

Is this the best you can do? Hope that a group of homeopaths will massagre your ego?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Oh, really? Could you point this out for us?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Oh, no. I just wanted to give them a better idea of the kind of person they were dealing with. We wouldn't want Rolfe to go over there and pretend she's capable of interpreting a study, would we?

[MRC_Hans]

Pathetic attention junkie, is what he is :rolleyes:. Even when he happens to be right, he manages to be wrong about it.

Hans

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, it wasn't. Do you need ceptimus to explain it to you again?

Perhaps we should let Ceptimus to speak for him/herself. You certainly don't have the visible standing to speak for ceptimus!

Others have dismembered this claim of yours, I'll leave it be.


Don't even get me started on the Godel stuff. You *really* have no idea what you're talking about, now.

So, you are insisting on a perfect rule that covers all cases.

You are claiming that any valid rule for JREF is a rule that has a provably correct true/false value over all propositions. That's exactly what you're claiming. Your impossible "rule" would be exactly a counterproof to Godel, and we both know it, and also know you haven't got it.

Show me this proof of how you can make a "perfect" rule that can judge ANY proposition. Show it, or stop asking for one.

Until you do, you're coming into this debate empty-handed.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Let's humor the moron for a moment, shall we?

"If a post has an even number of characters, it shall be permitted; if it has an odd number of characters, it shall be deleted at once."

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Let's humor the moron for a moment, shall we?

"If a post has an even number of characters, it shall be permitted; if it has an odd number of characters, it shall be delted at once."

Doesn't fulfull your demands for a rule. Your request for a rule went well beyond counting characters, into evaluating content. Shall we bring up your railling against interpretation, and then your own insistance on your OWN kind of intreptation a few articles later?

Be consistant. The "rule" above fails your own demands.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Speaking of people who can't actually think, but want to feel they're smarter than other people....

Let's give jj a big hand, everybody.

[applause]

When you want to discuss how you blindly repeated Rolfe and used her erroneous claims to browbeat others, you just let us know.

[DanishDynamite]

Is this thread some sort of social experiment, Wrath? Or is there some other reason for your constant infantile insults?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Infantile insults are the best response to infantile posts.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Let's humor the moron for a moment, shall we?

"If a post has an even number of characters, it shall be permitted; if it has an odd number of characters, it shall be delted at once."

Not if the post contains an overflow of characters (2^16 +/- 1, for a signed integer, depending on whether one's or two's complement is used). Of course, no post would really be that large, but we are using ideals here, no? How about a post containing all integers in decimal format? (Just nitpicking ;-).

But, for the information, this problem would not require a Turing machine, just a finite state machine (with two states), in which finite input is formally gauranteed (i.e. no infinite posts). JJ, the problem must be sufficiently complex to require a Turing machine to compute to fall under the halting problem (analogous to Godels theory for math, only for computers).

Your both idiots, and have no clue what you are talking about, although Wrath is also dishonest, petulant, and a prick. JJ was obviously looking for a non-trivial rule.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Infantile insults are the best response to infantile posts. Is that a yes or a no?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I didn't claim that any randomly chosen rule could be enforced.

jj wanted me to produce a rule that has no exceptions, and I gave him one. It's a nice, neat, binary rule that can be independently verified and leaves no room for interpretation.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

When you want to discuss how you blindly repeated Rolfe and used her erroneous claims to browbeat others, you just let us know.
I didn't either report Rolfe OR use her claims. I responded to your nonsense.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I didn't claim that any randomly chosen rule could be enforced.

Nor did I ask you for any such thing. You're simply evading the issue again.

jj wanted me to produce a rule that has no exceptions, and I gave him one. It's a nice, neat, binary rule that can be independently verified and leaves no room for interpretation.
It's also not the kind of rule that you were asking for in the thread down in Forum Management.

You were asking for a rule that decided how posts could be moved, a MEANINGFUL rule regarding such. Your statements and demands are quite clear in that thread, and given such, you have not offered anything meaningful that satisfies your own demands.

None the less, you're still demanding that others provide one.

[geni]

Hmm I notice WOTS doesn't appear to have got his hoped for responce over at hpathy.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You repeated several of Rolfe's claims on the previous page. Either that, or you spontaneously made the same errors as she did...

Well, what rule would you accept as meaningful? I suspect that by "meaningful" you mean "unenforceably vague". It would fit your pattern.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Gestahl

Your both idiots...

Tasty.

Adam

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Benguin said:
Maybe ... but I reckon you don't know why I called you bubbles
Because I'm half of leftover potatoes and cabbage?

Wrath said:
This isn't a forum of free-thinkers. This is a forum of people who like to believe they're on the right side.
Does that mean you'll be leaving now?

~~ Paul

[jj]

Originally posted by Gestahl


Not if the post contains an overflow of characters (2^16 +/- 1, for a signed integer, depending on whether one's or two's complement is used). Of course, no post would really be that large, but we are using ideals here, no? How about a post containing all integers in decimal format? (Just nitpicking ;-).

But making my point even while doing so.


But, for the information, this problem would not require a Turing machine, just a finite state machine (with two states), in which finite input is formally gauranteed (i.e. no infinite posts).

For his proposed rule, yes, a flip-flop with a transition per (was it character) would do. That is, however, NOT the kind of rule he was demanding of others.

In his discussions in the thread on Forum Management, he was demanding meaningful conclusions based on both form and content, certainly not merely counting, and furthermore has insisted repeatedly that any rule for JREF must be perfect, i.e. it must always result in the "right" decision. Note: He has provided no such rule (or set), only demanded such a rule set.

Regardless of the halting problem, which is not, I think, germane here, any such rule, he is asking for a rule that evaluates all propositions from all possible fields. I could, if I wanted, make the question being answered "is this mathematically correct?" In such a case, the existance of a perfect rule would exactly be counter to Godel.

JJ, the problem must be sufficiently complex to require a Turing machine to compute to fall under the halting problem (analogous to Godels theory for math, only for computers).

Um, I'm quite well aware of both what WOTS asked for, which was not a trival rule, rather a rule evaluating content, one requiring judgement (even though WOTS as attemped to avoid that as well), and of what both Godel and the Halting Problem are about.

His insistance in the forum management thread is not for something related to the halting problem (i.e. I'm not demanding a solution) but rather he's demanding a refutation to Godel's Theorem, by demanding a rule that can decide PROPERLY (i.e. proof-based) over all propositions from all possible fields.

No, wait, it's not quite that bad, or is it?

He requires a rule that decides correctly in all cases, one that can be shown by "logic" (his choice of words) to make the right decision, based on both form and abstract content of a given post. No "interpretation" can be required. Something based only on logic and not on interpretation can only be a proof.

Therefore:

For "logic" I read "proof", and that would be, then, demanding a validity proof of any such decision made by the rule, over all possible inputs from all possible fields. Ergo, the proof, at least, would be a violation of Godel, because it would be a way to relate all propositions analytically to a true/false decision. Yes? No?


Your both idiots, and have no clue what you are talking about,

I really, REALLY don't appreciate that, it's a professional insult.

although Wrath is also dishonest, petulant, and a prick. JJ was obviously looking for a non-trivial rule.
As is WOTS down in the forum management thread. His offering a trivial rule is simply dishonest and an attempt to avoid his own created context.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Well, what rule would you accept as meaningful?

Now, stop trying to shift the burden.

YOU are the one demanding such rules, not me.

YOU shall be the one to provide such.

You are the one complaining about rules in Forum Management, and YOU are the one demanding that responses to rules be provable in all times and cases.

I'm not the one asking for that, you are.

Now you're trying to shed responsibility by shifting the burden.

Stop cheating.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, I didn't. I asked for a clear and specific set of rules that would be properly enforced. I even said I didn't care what the rules were as long as they didn't leave loopholes open.

Now are you going to discuss Rolfe's inability to do math or not?

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, I didn't. I asked for a clear and specific set of rules that would be properly enforced. I even said I didn't care what the rules were as long as they didn't leave loopholes open.

Thank you for admitting fully and completely, in the same statement as your denial, that you have demanded rules that can be "enforced" and "didn't leave loopholes open", which means, clearly, a rule (or rules) that can be proven via mathematical proof to apply to all possible cases.

You are amazingly self-destructive, I would have at least expected you to attempt to change the rules you demand, yet you restate your own obvious demand, refuting yourself in the course of three consecutive sentences.

Could you be a bit more consistant the next time? Probably not, it doesn't further your agendae.

Now are you going to discuss Rolfe's inability to do math or not?
Why should I discuss it? Your question was flawed, and was nothing but bait in the first place. Rolfe quite wisely stated his/her assumptions, and you ran off into a hissy fit.

I haven't even said if I think Rolfe's answer is right or not, and frankly given the utter bogosity of the question, I don't care. Rolfe tried to rationalize the question, which was good of him or her, but frankly, I would have replied "when you get around to knowing how to ASK the question, I'll think about it". I've seen your kind lurking around the bowels of the internet for 20 years, and your methods are plain as day to me, so stop trying to play the innocent.

All I do see is your ill-formed question, a question clearly designed to create a controversy no matter what answer is given. That's about the same as your performance above, where you say "no I didn't" and then prove incontrovertably that you "did", although of course, leaving yourself an 'out' by when you try to claim that "I didn't" referred to something else.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Everyone who understands the math in that thread seems to regard the question as being just hunky-dory.

Why you don't respond to ceptimus' comments, where he said the question was perfectly straightforward, and refute them?

I don't think you have anything against ceptimus, so you won't have to waste time throwing insults my way and can get straight to responding.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It doesn't matter whether it's in your desired format or not. The point is so simple, details of format shouldn't even matter.

So tell us: who really wrote that book? How many favors did the ghostwriters make you perform? This post has been reported. It does not, however, violate any forum rules. If anyone has problems with Wrath of the Swarm's posting style, I highly recommend using the Ignore function.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There are occasionally benefits in having rules riddled with loopholes. If they're there, why not take advantage of them?

[richardm]

Originally posted by jj

Why should I discuss it? Your question was flawed, and was nothing but bait in the first place.

I think this is the very "it" of the matter. WOTS has an incurable ego problem that can best be massaged by insulting all and sundry. I refer you to my previous comment about Lord Kenneth - the style is depressingly similar.

[Benguin]

Because I'm half of leftover potatoes and cabbage?

Impressive response ... leaving me not 100% sure whether you worked out my childish jibe, yet strongly suspecting you have.

Talking of childish jibes, why exactly is this thread still trundling along?

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Everyone who understands the math in that thread seems to regard the question as being just hunky-dory.

Um, WOTS, dearie, I have awards from professional societies (plural) that read directly to a good understanding of mathematics, including the kind in the posting.

Don't flatter youself here.

Why you don't respond to ceptimus' comments, where he said the question was perfectly straightforward, and refute them?

What's to refute? I'll let Ceptimus speak for himself.

I don't think you have anything against ceptimus, so you won't have to waste time throwing insults my way and can get straight to responding.
What's to refute, I'll let Ceptimus explain what he said to you, if he wants. I'm not going to speak for him.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by richardm


I think this is the very "it" of the matter. WOTS has an incurable ego problem that can best be massaged by insulting all and sundry. I refer you to my previous comment about Lord Kenneth - the style is depressingly similar.

Humour a newcomer- what was Lord Kenneth's offence?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by jj
What's to refute, I'll let Ceptimus explain what he said to you, if he wants. I'm not going to speak for him.

So you are forwarding a position diametrically opposed to ceptimus', but you don't see anything in his statements you should refute?

Yep. Perfectly consistent on all counts.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm


So you are forwarding a position diametrically opposed to ceptimus',

No, I'm not. You just want everyone to think that.


but you don't see anything in his statements you should refute?


Ceptimus was perfectly clear, he had to make assumptions. Your question was bad. End of discussion.

The fact that one MIGHT intuit what kind to make is irrelevant.


Yep. Perfectly consistent on all counts.
Yeah, it is, when somebody (that would be you) would not be trying to play the old "let's you and him fight" shell game.

***yawn*** Go to bed, sonny, you're up past your bedtime.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

ceptimus has, with remarkable patience (far more than I have) attempted to explain that the argument you've just presented is completely wrong.

Yet you have absolutely no interest in discussing this with him.

Hmmm... methinks you're on a personal vendetta with me, so you don't care what argument you use as long as it contradicts me; in turn, this implies that you didn't select your argument for its correctness.

I can live with that.

If you just want to yell insults at me, use PM for that. If you want to combine insults with actual valid arguments, go right ahead. Until then... well.

[olaf]

Originally posted by scribble

I don't like Rolfe.
for starters she lies.

**************************************************


"I can make that problem sit up and beg, jump through hoops and lie down and die for England. I can make it do so much more than you even imagine it can do..." - Rolfe, bragging about her ability to manipulate statistics.

--and over here, she foolishly tells on herself.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
ceptimus has, with remarkable patience (far more than I have) attempted to explain that the argument you've just presented is completely wrong.


No, that is not what he said. That is your own misleading summary of what he said.

You've been caught out on this at least 3 times so far, why are you trying for 4?

[Dancing David]

Oh crap, I voted Planet X before I read the whole option.

I thought it was a real Planet X option!

I feel that I do not understand enough of what this urine spraying event was about to decide.

Beware Oh Wrath for you have abused the Planet X option, thou must placate the Mighty Shemp with Crispy Cremes until his wrath passes.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by jj
No, that is not what he said. That is your own misleading summary of what he said. Oh, you think so? Well, let's go straight to the source, then.

Originally posted by ceptimus:
The biostat professor's definition of the term is the same as the one WotS has been using throughout. Further, if the same accuracy applies to any population, with any frequency of occurence of the disease, it then (mathematically) follows that the specificity and sensitivity must be the same as the accuracy. You are mistaken in your belief that accuracy has a variety of meanings. Of course as an English word, it does have many meanings, as any dictionary will show, but when it is applied to the outcome of tests that give a binary (yes/no) answer, then the meaning is (or should be) totally clear to any mathematician, scientist or engineer.

As I said many pages ago it simply tells you how good the test is - if a test is 99% accurate, it means that (in the long run) for every 100 tests you do, one of the results will be wrong. How could it possibly mean anything else? Can you give an alternative definition that could apply in a mathematical context? But it does give all the information necessary when it is unchanging, as I demonstrated above.

'A particular test is always 99% accurate.'

This tells you everything you need to know. Of course, you couldn't say this except in the unlikely circumstance that alpha = beta, but when you can say it, it conveys ALL the information.

To say, as you just did, that it doesn't convey sufficient information is simply wrong.

I think that's enough. My apologies to ceptimus for bringing him into this whole mess.

[jj]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Oh, you think so? Well, let's go straight to the source, then.

[/b] [/b]

I think that's enough. My apologies to ceptimus for bringing him into this whole mess. [/B]

I notice you dodge all of those "if's".

The original question remains flawed.

[T'ai Chi]

Wrath, I'm not sure about Rolfe, but I do know that misunderstanding statistics seems to be going around:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh crap, I voted Planet X before I read the whole option.

I thought it was a real Planet X option!

I feel that I do not understand enough of what this urine spraying event was about to decide.

Beware Oh Wrath for you have abused the Planet X option, thou must placate the Mighty Shemp with Crispy Cremes until his wrath passes.
This post has been reported for a very serious violation of sooper sekrit forum rule 3.14159 subpart A. For the record, it's Krispy Kremes, with a K, not a C. We'll let this one pass, but I can't speak for Shemp.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Wrath, I'm not sure about Rolfe, but I do know that misunderstanding statistics seems to be going around:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789.
Good heavens, yes, this threat to the Forum must be dealt with. I command everyone to sign up for advanced statistics classes, so we may all beat each other over the head with repetitious public notice of our errors. Then we can put together a meta-analysis to see who's really right.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Good heavens, yes, this threat to the Forum must be dealt with. I command everyone to sign up for advanced statistics classes, so we may all beat each other over the head with repetitious public notice of our errors. Then we can put together a meta-analysis to see who's really right.

It seems to be some type of problem, Pyrrho, when a poster tells others to provide evidence, admit they're wrong, etc., and then that poster doesn't do that himself in certain situations, including a situation where he tells someone who has a graduate degree in statistics some "fact" about statistics that is incorrect.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It seems to be some type of problem, Pyrrho, when a poster tells others to provide evidence, admit they're wrong, etc., and then that poster doesn't do that himself in certain situations, including a situation where he tells someone who has a graduate degree in statistics some "fact" about statistics that is incorrect.
It's a personal problem, of course, and I won't interfere. I will laugh at it, though.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey


Humour a newcomer- what was Lord Kenneth's offence?

In this context, he was a high-school kid who would post as though he was the acme of knowledge. If an error was pointed out in his post, he'd defend it to the hilt. If anyone else made an error, he'd repeatedly beat them over the head with it and dismiss their entire argument. Sometimes, he'd continue beating them in new threads even after the original argument was long gone. WoTS's style is, as I say, depressingly familiar.

In his defence, there were other contexts, although personally I didn't find any of them all that attractive. But that's the one that sticks in my mind.

He was eventually suspended at his own request, not for any violations.

[Pyrrho]

Actually, as I recall, he was suspended for continually berating Clancie, and the suspension was left in place at the request of LK's mother.

[athon]

My god, is this thread still going on? I would have thought it would have died a natural death due to lack of any real substance.

What's the real issue here, WOTS? Not breastfed as a baby or something? The concern here is not whether Rolfe was right or wrong about something (which was covered within the first few posts), but that you have a bug in your pants about something and you want to drag this out into a playground bullying match.

And I hate bullies.

Athon

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

It's a personal problem, of course, and I won't interfere. I will laugh at it, though.

Oh I'm laughing at it too, trust me. :)

[richardm]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Actually, as I recall, he was suspended for continually berating Clancie, and the suspension was left in place at the request of LK's mother.

I'm sure your recollection is better than mine - I couldn't quite remember how it played out.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by richardm
I'm sure your recollection is better than mine - I couldn't quite remember how it played out.
It's still searchable here, but it's like watching Plan 9 From Outer Space. You don't even want to see it the first time.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Rolfe bragged about how she knew so much about the subject at hand - claimed she'd written a book and everything - yet she used the wrong names for certain concepts, made invalid claims about those concepts, and couldn't understand a very simple mathematical argument.

And many, many people supported her and repeated her assertions as if they were facts - used them to attack people who supported my simple and quite obviously correct claims.

I want everyone to realize how little critical thought actually takes place in these forums. And if I have to beat this dead horse, so be it.

[Jeepers]

I don't know if Rolfe is an expert in her own contrived statistics (remember she has said she can manipulate them till they scream out and say what ever it is that she wants them to say). However, I do detect a bit of mind reading on her part. :wow2: Maybe she should try out for Randi's millions.

Jeepers!

[Vitnir]

When you have a certain amount of raw data you can choose between many tests and pick the one that suits you, some people do and when they are found out their reputation in their field is shot to pieces.

Admitting that you made a mistake is sexy, whining about that somebody ruined your sand castle is not.

Oh and I liked Plan 9 from outer space!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, but Rolfe didn't make a mistake. If she'd merely attached the wrong name to the right concept, I'd let it pass. That's just a dumb error of the sort that happens when you're typing rapidly.

But she screwed up the math completely, claimed I had set a trap to make medical professionals look like fools, then claimed I'd done so ineffectively.

Then she bragged about how she'd shown me up and what a fool I was.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
It doesn't matter how people vote. No matter what they think, Rolfe will still be an incompetent attention-seeking whore who baits people even dumber than she is so that she can make herself look smart.
And you wonder why people support Rolfe and attack you?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I don't wonder. People are motivated by their emotional responses, not reason.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I don't wonder. People are motivated by their emotional responses, not reason.
I agree to a certain extent, but isn't that also the reason for all this abuse?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Not exactly. The abuse is occurring because Rolfe had the temerity to claim to be an expert after making such a complete hash of a simple mathematical issue that essentially nothing she said was the least bit accurate.

She even "thanked God for delivering me into her hands".

Now I will not permit her to bask in the attention she gets at this forum any longer.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm


Now I will not permit her to bask in the attention she gets at this forum any longer.

You get stupider every day, Wrath.

I'll make it this simple:

You don't have that power.

But keep going. It's entetaining to watch your infantile, impotent ravings.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by scribble


You get stupider every day, Wrath.

I'll make it this simple:

You don't have that power.

But keep going. It's entetaining to watch your infantile, impotent ravings.

Seconded. I'd try to be more tactful sometimes, but nah, not in this case.


At least Rolfe had the grace to apologize and move on from the get go. She even voted no on the poll.

What more do you want? Us to tar and feather her and run her outta dodge?

I have far more respect for her actions on your little issue here. I also have far more respect for her on any issues she covers with astute knowledge and the ability to debate without degradation.

You're a Worm, so wiggle on and get over it already.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Rolfe bragged about how she knew so much about the subject at hand - claimed she'd written a book and everything

This seems not to be mere sarcasm, I think you are actually claiming she has invented the book she claims to have written. All I can say is whether she's an 'expert' or not is another matter, but she has written the book she claims to have written. I'm looking at it even as I type this.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Then since she has demonstrated that she does not understand the concepts involved, I must reach one of two conclusions:

1) Other people helped with the book.

2) Rolfe learned the concepts by rote, and has never examined even the basic theory of how and why various calculations work and how certain values are determined.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Then since she has demonstrated that she does not understand the concepts involved, I must reach one of two conclusions:

1) Other people helped with the book.

2) Rolfe learned the concepts by rote, and has never examined even the basic theory of how and why various calculations work and how certain values are determined.

Must you? More verbal inexactitude! If you want to play the game of semantic tennis it can proliferate seemingly without limit.

[bug_girl]

Wrath, i just noticed your new sig file, and wanted to go on the record as saying that you are a complete and utter git.

Here's another way this could have played out:
you could PM Rolfe, or publicly post a correction. Rolfe could say "wow, i was really annoyed at you, and seem to have mispoken in anger. you are correct." And that's the end of it.
You still get to be right.
And you don't continue exposing yourself as the ******* you are.

[olaf]

"I can make that problem sit up and beg, jump through hoops and lie down and die for England. I can make it do so much more than you even imagine it can do..." - Rolfe, bragging about her ability to manipulate statistics.

rolfe needs to be exposed for the fraud that she is.

her bragging about manipulating statistics and studies is the very reason that i have called her out for LYING about acupuncture.

she is a liar and a fraud.

she has an agenda.

she is dishonest.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I don't care whether I'm see as right or not. What matters is that people realize Rolfe was wrong.

Not just slightly wrong, as if she had misnamed a concept. That would be a trivial and inconsequential error, and one I would have ignored. Not just mostly wrong, as in defining the concept improperly and then using it correctly.

She used the wrong name, used the wrong definition (and it was one that had nothing to do with the problem), asserted the problem lacked sufficient information to be solved because she didn't understand a very basic concept, and insisted that she was right and I was wrong because "medical statistics" contains concepts not present in "mathematical statistics" (when it's the other way around!).

Instead of being an expert on the subject (and she claimed she'd written a book about the use of statistics in medicine) she made mistakes I wouldn't expect an introductory student to make.

Oh yes, she also went to other threads and insulted me, my argument, and everyone who kept trying to tell her and her groupies that they were wrong.

Rolfe is an attention whore, pure and simple. She has a reputation for being a hardline skeptic when she can't critically analyze elementary math in a field she's professionally qualified in. And because of that reputation, no one seems to have noticed that she has no idea what she's talking about when it comes to statistical tests.

She normally involves herself with "alternative medical claims" on these boards - do you really want a person who can't think about her own statements and stubbornly insists that she's right because she's an authority representing the board?

She gives everyone here a bad name.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by bug_girl
you could PM Rolfe, or publicly post a correction. Just to clarify: I posted a public correction. And another. And another. For more than ten pages' worth of thread.

And Rolfe never once admitted she was wrong about her initial objection, although she did admit to screwing up the rest of her argument (although she tried to pass it off as a typo).

Since Rolfe has a significant number of people who take her statements and repeat them without even understanding the argument in question, it wouldn't do any good if Rolfe admitted she was wrong in a PM - they'd all claim I was wrong and didn't want to admit it, and most people here would believe that without actually going back and reading the thread for themselves.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Just to clarify: I posted a public correction. And another. And another. For more than ten pages' worth of thread.

And Rolfe never once admitted she was wrong about her initial objection, although she did admit to screwing up the rest of her argument (although she tried to pass it off as a typo).

Since Rolfe has a significant number of people who take her statements and repeat them without even understanding the argument in question, it wouldn't do any good if Rolfe admitted she was wrong in a PM - they'd all claim I was wrong and didn't want to admit it, and most people here would believe that without actually going back and reading the thread for themselves.

Speaking as one of Rolfe's groupies, it may help to clarify matters if I point out that, notwithstanding that status, I disagree with you not because I think Rofe is right, but because you are wrong.

How's the Latin homework coming along?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Yes, and you'll be convinced of that forever, no matter how many times we explain your error to you.

I hope you enjoy being 'right'.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by olaf


rolfe needs to be exposed for the fraud that she is.

her bragging about manipulating statistics and studies is the very reason that i have called her out for LYING about acupuncture.

she is a liar and a fraud.

she has an agenda.

she is dishonest.

Rolfe's agenda is to save lives.

She is not dishonest, she admitted her mistake without whining about it.

She is not a liar because she admitted her mistake.

She is not lying about accupuncture. You have not proved that. You are lying and whiny and a hypocrite.

You are pathetic, clueless, and ignorant-as has been proven over and over again.

To come here and join in Wrath's immaturity is ridiculous.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I don't care whether I'm see as right or not. What matters is that people realize Rolfe was wrong.

Not just slightly wrong, as if she had misnamed a concept. That would be a trivial and inconsequential error, and one I would have ignored. Not just mostly wrong, as in defining the concept improperly and then using it correctly.

She used the wrong name, used the wrong definition (and it was one that had nothing to do with the problem), asserted the problem lacked sufficient information to be solved because she didn't understand a very basic concept, and insisted that she was right and I was wrong because "medical statistics" contains concepts not present in "mathematical statistics" (when it's the other way around!).

Instead of being an expert on the subject (and she claimed she'd written a book about the use of statistics in medicine) she made mistakes I wouldn't expect an introductory student to make.

Oh yes, she also went to other threads and insulted me, my argument, and everyone who kept trying to tell her and her groupies that they were wrong.

Rolfe is an attention whore, pure and simple. She has a reputation for being a hardline skeptic when she can't critically analyze elementary math in a field she's professionally qualified in. And because of that reputation, no one seems to have noticed that she has no idea what she's talking about when it comes to statistical tests.

She normally involves herself with "alternative medical claims" on these boards - do you really want a person who can't think about her own statements and stubbornly insists that she's right because she's an authority representing the board?

She gives everyone here a bad name.


Liar. She does doesn't stubbornly insist she is right. She shows why ignorant arguments and sickenly harmful homeopaths are wrong. She shows maturity and experience and expertise.

Quit twisting things around you jealous schmuck. People realize where the mistake was, and it is MINOR compared to the idiocy you have tripped yourself up on many times.

Rolfe is far more gracious than you when an error is pointed out.

Your blathering temper tantrum here only makes you look like a ranting fanatic. I do wish you would realize how people hate you and respect Rolfe because you are complete opposites.

I'm just sick of you dragging her name through the mud over one minor triviality (although you think the molehill is mountain).

So, when is thread going to be moved to the catfight arena? That is all this is. Wrath is a ranting howling screaching freak letting loose, and it is rather pathetic that it is showcased here.

Wrath gives everyone a bad name. Rolfe is respected and not a freak.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, whining is about all she did.

Even after the linked mistakes were pointed out to her, she denied them. Then she said we didn't understand because we weren't experts in "medical statistics". Then she said they were typos.

She has still yet to admit that every part of her argument, from the names down to the applications of concepts, was wrong.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, whining is about all she did.

Even after the linked mistakes were pointed out to her, she denied them. Then she said we didn't understand because we weren't experts in "medical statistics". Then she said they were typos.

She has still yet to admit that every part of her argument, from the names down to the applications of concepts, was wrong.

Your demeaning and ranting behaviour makes it look like she was right.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Liar. She does doesn't stubbornly insist she is right. Oh, really? I have a very long thread that proves otherwise.

Quit twisting things around you jealous schmuck. People realize where the mistake was, and it is MINOR compared to the idiocy you have tripped yourself up on many times. It wasn't a mistake. Everything she said is wrong.

That's really the whole of your argument: "Rolfe is respected and not a freak, therefore the claims made about her must be false!"

I've got news for you: your hero is an ignorant, lying, whining attention-whore. And no matter how much you condemn the evidence that demonstrates that, it's still true.

[Jeepers]

Maybe a gentler way of saying it would be that if you look at the poll, the majority are counting on Rolfe to be an 'expert'. So if she isn't as accurate as people think she is, they are using her input to argue things making them as stoopid in the arguement as they think the people they are debating are.

I see a lot of assumptions going on here that are being passed off as logic and critical thinking. True critical thinking requires that you remain unbiased.

Jeepers

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Oh, really? I have a very long thread that proves otherwise.

[/b] It wasn't a mistake. Everything she said is wrong.

That's really the whole of your argument: "Rolfe is respected and not a freak, therefore the claims made about her must be false!"

I've got news for you: your hero is an ignorant, lying, whining attention-whore. And no matter how much you condemn the evidence that demonstrates that, it's still true. [/B]


No my argument is that I don't expect people to be perfect, and that your rantings cause me to disrespect you and care less about Rolfe's 'mountain' mistake.

She is still my hero and I still hate you.


I have made mistakes, and I'm glad I don't have you ramming it down my throat.

I really ought to dredge up all your mistakes, but I really don't care. Unlike you when others make mistakes.

All I know is that you're prone to temper tantrums, and that is ridiculous.

Not everything Rolfe says is wrong. I don't care if you think this instance is sooo big that Rolfe should be deserving of your ignoramous rants. I care that you have ignoramous rants.


I don't know enough on the subject you are ranting about to even pay attention to Rolfe's postings on it. I have no opinion, and was not assuming anybody was right. I waited for the outcome of it all.

You won't find me saying she is right just because she is Rolfe.

Now if you stop behaving like a jerk and keep pointing out mistakes maturely, I would appreciate it. I watchdog just as much as you do. I just don't behave like a loon when I find one.

Grow up already, and do what you do without being a spectacle.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Again: she didn't make a mistake. She made many basic mistakes repeatedly, mistakes that introductory students wouldn't make.

Her statements were completely incompatible with her claim that she knew anything of what she was talking about.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Again: she didn't make a mistake. She made many basic mistakes repeatedly, mistakes that introductory students wouldn't make.

Her statements were completely incompatible with her claim that she knew anything of what she was talking about.


Like I said though, I don't know enough on the subject to know that. I would be more willing to listen to you if you didn't freak out. Stop with the name calling. You have stated all there is to state on this topic. I still don't understand it, and don't care. I just don't want to read your posts because you cannot state something maturely and matter of factly and clearly without the rants and name calling.

Can we all move on to something else now?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

If you don't know enough of the subject to have an informed opinion, then you don't know enough about the situation to determine whether the names and ranting are justified or not.

So you're basically just shooting your mouth off.

No wonder Rolfe is a hero of yours. You share certain characteristics.

[garys_2k]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

Then she bragged about how she'd shown me up and what a fool I was.
And, if anyone missed that, you much more clearly demonstrated it here, yourself.

[davefoc]

WOTS said:I'm a fool, but I say I'm a fool

That is nice WOTS and I will take your word for it, but I think you may have missed the point of the responses in this thread. That you think that you are a fool seems a reasonable conclusion but the general consensus of most of the responders is that you are acting like a jerk or that you are a jerk. It seems that you have succeeded in identifying an issue where there is common ground on the part of almost all the posters to this thread. Well done.

[T'ai Chi]

Who knew statistics and medicine could be so fun!? :)

[davefoc]

A thought as to a mathematical definition of accuracy using the terms supplied by Rolfe:

accuracy = (TN + TP) / (TP + FP + TN + FN)

Accuracy to me means the chance that a particular result is correct. I can see how in the medical world the term has little value because what people are interested in is what the chances a particular result (negative or positive) is correct.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Whether I'm a jerk doesn't matter - or at least, it's not supposed to matter.

Isn't whether I'm right what's important? If we're all thinking rationally and dispassionately, that is.

An important thing to note about that formula: it's only defined when you have actual values to put into it, and that happens in only two cases.

Case 1: the chance of getting a true positive equals the chance of getting a true negative, so it doesn't matter what population the test is used on.
Case 2: the results of the test for a particular sample are known.

[Donks]

I have no position on the issue about Rolfe, my knowledge of statistical analysis in not that great. But...
Whether I'm a jerk doesn't matter - or at least, it's not supposed to matter.
In the real world, it does matter. While an anonymous message board on the internet may not seem like the real world, it is. Everyone posting here is a real person, and at least I dislike jerks online as much as I do offline, I'd guess many others do too. And I'm not saying this because Rolfe is whoever she is in this board, I'm a new guy. Acting like you do doesn't win you respect, IMHO.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by scribble
It's ente[r]taining to watch your infantile, impotent ravings.

You know, you may have struck upon something, here.

From the start, I thought it odd that WOTS kept making these ill-considered and fairly vile remarks -- you know, "questionable virtue," the many, many shrill cries of "whore," the accusations about imagined sexual favors . . . .

But I think you've struck upon something. It all begins to make a sort of sense, doesn't it?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So let me get this straight: you'll respect a polite person who lies about her knowledge and keeps putting forward utterly nonsensical arguments more than a rude person who's correct?

[Donks]

Not exactly. I'd respect both not at all.

Edit: In the case at hand, I do respect Rolfe more, since I haven't been paying enough attention and don't have the knowledge to form an opinion on the problem.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah.

So what is your opinion of James Randi?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Isn't whether I'm right what's important? If we're all thinking rationally and dispassionately, that is. - but do you need to emphasize it page after page? Will this thread still be here in June?

Whether I'm a jerk doesn't matter - or at least, it's not supposed to matter.I can only speak for myself, but IMHO you get jerkier and jerkier the longer you keep going.

Isn't it about time to do something else? :con2:

[Donks]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Ah.

So what is your opinion of James Randi?

I've only seen him on TV a couple of times and read a few of the comentaries. So far, I like the guy, and respect him :)

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

No wonder Rolfe is a hero of yours. You share certain characteristics.

Nice, I gave you some advice and you react like the usual worm you are.

BTW, I take that as a compliment.

No situation is justified for the ridiculous behaviour you display like an immature urchcin. I have lost all hope for you, and will forever think you are a waste of skin until you demonstrate otherwise (not holding my breath). I also cannot trust your judgement of who is wrong or right because of your bad attitude.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Donks
I've only seen him on TV a couple of times and read a few of the comentaries. So far, I like the guy, and respect him :) But he's known for being quite rude when dealing with "people of questionable judgment and/or intelligence".

So why is his dedication to rational thought and skepticism more important than his attitude?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Nice, I gave you some advice and you react like the usual worm you are.

BTW, I take that as a compliment. What part of "Rolfe claimed to possess expert knowledge but didn't actually know anything about the subject" do you consider complimentary?

[Donks]

I haven't seen him be rude to anyone yet, so I can't comment on that.
I have seen the other side be rude to him, and if he replied rudely to that, then I wouln't consider that being a jerk. But that's just a hypothetical.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Have you read Rolfe's first few pages of responses to my original thread, or her comments about me in the "Real Spawn of the Thread that won't die" thread?

What are your thoughts regarding her statements about my intelligence, knowledge, and intentions?

[Suezoled]

Wrath: you're whining. It's rather unbecoming of someone of some intelligence to try to pin someone else down no matter the cost. You're not winning any causes this way.

[Donks]

I just read the first 10 or so posts of the thread. She gives the answer, you get all pissy and call her an idiot and a jerk. Then, as they say in fark, hillarity ensues. I have not read the real spawn of the whatever.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Interesting.

So, in a thread intended to determine whether forumites would know what the right answer was, Rolfe's posting of the answer and a complete explanation (when the answer was explicitly going to be posted when the poll closed) isn't interpreted as rude?

And her further statements (which you haven't read) aren't relevant?

[Donks]

I like trying to solve puzzles, although I'm quite bad at them. In another board I used to frequent, it was more of a competition thing, the answers were posted in the open. Here I have noticed the protocol is to hide the answers or the hints, to keep it fun for everyone. I like both systems.

In your thread, since it was a poll, I would prefer it if the people just voted and left it at that, posting little or not at all, and hidden. But, if someone goes and posts the complete analysis, well, so be it. Yes, the poll is ruined, but I don't see it as a reason to get aggressive.

About her further statements. Depends, I'd have to read them, which I'm not going to do now, because I have to finish implementing something or I'm going to get murdered tomorrow.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What part of "Rolfe claimed to possess expert knowledge but didn't actually know anything about the subject" do you consider complimentary?
Strawman. Course you know I was referring to what I quoted, but as usual you have a nard moment and stomp your feet and put something else.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

No wonder Rolfe is a hero of yours. You share certain characteristics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




My neice said

I hate you, so shut up. And don't talk to my aunty ever again, cause you are a liar

See, now even kids hate you. :p


:D :D :D Okay, I'll keep the kids out of this, but she wanted to see why I was laughing.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Strawman. Course you know I was referring to what I quoted, but as usual you have a nard moment and stomp your feet and put something else. First of all, even if your argument were correct, that's not a strawman.

Secondly, those characteristics I was referring to? Yeah, they'd be the characteristics of being an ignorant, self-important liar who can't be troubled to refrain from offering opinions about things you know nothing about.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
First of all, even if your argument were correct, that's not a strawman.

Secondly, those characteristics I was referring to? Yeah, they'd be the characteristics of being an ignorant, self-important liar who can't be troubled to refrain from offering opinions about things you know nothing about. [/B]


As I said, get over it. If everybody lorded your mistakes over you like you do to Rolfe in particular, this whole board would be devoted to doing to you what you do to others. However, we have better things to do and more maturity. I am getting bored with this, so I will just take a few of the kids running around here to the park.
I have been telling them what I have been telling you. There are people in this world who are jealous and want to make a huge deal out of a molehill. People make mistakes and the good ones own up to it, as Rolfe did. But there you are again, still harping on it and looking like a child having a temper tantrum.

It is a good lesson for them to learn how not to act when something is very old news. It is a lesson about how annoying people like you are, and so not to be like that. They know it is mean and cheap shots only make people turn away from you, not listen to the message that may have been respected if only stated once and in a non-condescending manner.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I don't believe I've ever made a mistake of the magnitude of claiming to be an expert, trying to bluff my way through a discussion and failing, and attacking the people who pointed out I was wrong as having a hidden agenda and being ignorant twerps without the right to judge me.

If you can find an example of such a serious error of mine, please post a link to it. I would like to identify and rectify such errors.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Rolfe
1. I acknowledged that was an error. Please see above, I'm not doing it all again.

2. If the rates of false positives and false negatives are the same, then the rates of false positives and false negatives are the same. That's all. It doesn't justify the introduction of a completely foreign term (foreign to binary test discussion, that is) to describe this unusual occurrence. There is a reason why this term isn't used in this context, please see above again, because trying to derive any universally-applicable definition is confusing at best, please see (less far) above.

Yes, assumptions.

Rolfe.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
She claimed specificity is the percentage of positive results that are correct.

This is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Rolfe
Yes, it is wrong. That describes the PPV, in fact. And if I said that, I made a unintentional mistake. There are places in here where I was typing too fast, I have noticed. Including a total typo of "precision" when I meant something else.

So go on, I'm off on holiday, go through the thread to find the typos, feel free. I've acknowledged the genuine error.

Wrath acknowledged his too, earlier.

Rolfe.

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

1. No, Monkey-boy. Accuracy is not defined outside of a particular sample population only if alpha is not equal to beta. If alpha equals beta, it's perfectly possible to define the absolute accuracy of the test, since that value will no longer change between different populations.

2. "So it is demonstrated" is a perfectly adequate definition. In contrast, your argument doesn't even approach coherence.

3. The person making the basic conceptual error shouldn't brag about the quality of his educational experience. Twit.

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
1. But, if you only give the accuracy and do not define the sample populations then alpha and beta are not constrained to single values. You did not define the sample population adequately

2. No it isn't. Go and look up your verb moods and tenses.

3. You are truly a shining wit with these hilarious insults.

Please discuss: is a phrase a true Spoonerism if it only works in spoken and not written form.


Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I'll stop the puerile name-calling when you cease being a prat.

If it's possible to specify a general accuracy, alpha and beta are set: they're both equal to the general error, which mea