Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1,902: Line 1,902:     
:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.  But quantity is no substitute or quality.  You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil.  Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about.  Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
 
:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.  But quantity is no substitute or quality.  You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil.  Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about.  Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that  show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's  database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that  the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your  software to which you want attend?
 +
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable  claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may  rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math  behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.
 +
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them,  you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as  long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the  amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English  language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the  ''best conservative words''.
 +
 +
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)
221

edits

Navigation menu