Poster with the biggest ego?

[J. J.]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

Jfern, on the other hand, has a fragile ego, as seen by his "You all hate me" posts.  To date, he is the only poster I've had to say, "No, I don't hate you," to, twice!  That's not a big ego.

[J. J.]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

I'm still not 100% convinced that that's his real personality.  I honestly cannot imagine how anyone could be such an absolute ass and still function in the real world.

There called undergraduates?  ;-)

What I can't understand is, the facts are so easy to look up, why doesn't he just say, "Oh, I forgot about that?"  He really makes himself look like a jerk when he posts something that can be checked.  Also, if he wanted to be impressive, why not do things like have an email address, or a website (I don't have one either, but I limit the area where work to Phila usually).

[J. J.]

AUH2O, and he tries (but he should really try reading and looking things up before he posts).

Jfern, on the other hand, has a fragile ego, as seen by his "You all hate me" posts.  To date, he is the only poster I've had to say, "No, I don't hate you," to, twice!  That's not a big ego.

That's because you always insist that I'm wrong without regard to the facts. It's clear that you have a bit of a bias, failing to every admit you're wrong on basic statistics after months.

As I've indicated it was twice.  The first time was after I pointed of that something that happened in July of one year could not possibly cause something that happened in March of the same year.  Nothing related to statistics.

Now a number of people looked at you claims, and they made a judgment.  I believe one, and it wasn't me, described your statistical claims as "demonstratably false."

If you really are a grad student, as you claim, I seriously suggest that you print out description of the process that I gave and take it to a statistics professor.  Face to face, he might be better able to explain it.

I'm conviced that your problem is neither ego, nor math.  You don't understand how to construct the basic model of the tests that we've discussed; that's were the problems are with all of your statistical arguments.  If the model is invalid, the math will be worthless.

[J. J.]

Classic J.J, claim I said something I didn't say, and then still claim you're right and I'm wrong. Tredrick's poll was biased, he didn't realize what we were arguing about the 940 heads and 60 tails. I ran the question as a poll, of course it ended up being close due to people deciding that since you've called me JFraud, I must be wrong,

Well here are the two theads:

Let's see if you can read one sentence:

In return for the Concordat the Centre Party provided parliamentary backing for the Enabling Act and a two-thirds constitutional majority was obtained.

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/wiki/Nazi_Party

OK.  And where in that sentence does it say the Catholic Church supported the Enabling Act?  The Center Party is not the same as the Church.  Von Papen is not the same as Pucelli.

You made a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.  Do you have something more concrete than your interpretation of what that wiki article is implying?

I suppose having you find and read that paragraph was expecting too much.
Here is the previous two sentences in that paragraph:

However Hitler required the legitimacy of the Enabling Act by passing a constitutional change. Von Papen, with the leader of the German Catholic Centre Party Ludwig Kaas, engineered an agreement between the Vatican's Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII).

JFRAUD, it is impossible to claim that the Enabling Act was supported because of the Concordat as the article claims, specifically:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Conordat was signed on July 20, 1993.  Here at two links, including the text of the Concordat:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob37.html

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm

The Enabling act was adopted on March 23, 1933, more than three months before the Concordat was signed. 

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

Are you suggesting that someone had a time machine so that they could bring a copy back from July of 1933 to March of 1933?  In 1933 March still happened before July.

You are now to the point disputing the calendar.

Nobody on this thread have said that they "hate" you.  I have never said that I "hate" you on any thread.

Here is something, which I wouldn't refer to as negative, that I said on the subject:

Go read a statistics book, or talk to a statistics professor, whatever, since you obviously can't accept the simple logic I put out because you hate me or something.  I'm sure I have more experience with statistics than you.

I do not hate you, but I also don't like people being attacked unfairly.  That is one of the reasons you never saw the "John Kerry: A War Criminal from a Family of Drug Dealers" thread. 

As far as I know, no poster on this thread "hates" you.

That's what you claimed and tried to argue out of both points.  Any poster interested can go and look.  These are also the two times when I said that I don't hate you.

"Classic JJ" is finding the information and posting it.  "Classic JFRAUD" is getting it wrong, and trying to weasel out of it.

Seriously, on one of those threads I suggested printing out my statement and taking to someone who understands how statistics work, and letting them explain the concept behing the math.

[J. J.]

This thread is teh ruined

Sorry

And I was saying (and still am) that the guy doesn't have a big ego.

[J. J.]

I guess my problem is that I get mad at stupid people who can't admit they're wrong.

No wonder you are angry all the time.  You need to relax and forgive yourself.

(Sorry, just too good a shot to pass up.)

I didn't say he was stupid either.  He just isn't correctly conceptualizing the problem.

Let's I've said Jfern doesn't have a big ego, not stupid and I don't hate him, and he's angry.  :-)

[J. J.]

markdel annoyed me quite a bit.

Just annoying someone isn't enought.

[J. J.]

Philip's "well obviously you're wrong" attitude gets on my nerves.  Coupled with his fondness for petty personal attacks, too.

I have to say that I have not seen that, and I disagree with A18 at times.  Just like StatesRights, I disagree with him at times as well.  I would not classify either of them as being stupid or as having a big ego.