can't remember exactly. i remember it was my first PC with an internal modem. First thing i did was search for Giants fan websites and BBI was at the top of the list.
can't remember exactly. i remember it was my first PC with an internal modem. First thing i did was search for Giants fan websites and BBI was at the top of the list.
I remember those days of 58k internet bandwidth access. It was like watching paint dry.
in February 2001, not too long after the SB debacle
You pointed something out that still troubles me today. Why is it that EACH time a selection was made to create a billboard for the NY Giants Super Bowl quest they went on to win and the ONLY time this selection did not take place, thanks to individuals such as the FatMan and his groupies, the Giants lost?
in February 2001, not too long after the SB debacle
You pointed something out that still troubles me today. Why is it that EACH time a selection was made to create a billboard for the NY Giants Super Bowl quest they went on to win and the ONLY time this selection did not take place, thanks to individuals such as the FatMan and his groupies, the Giants lost?
What is that about?
i am sure that you can find an answer to that in your version of science.
in February 2001, not too long after the SB debacle
You pointed something out that still troubles me today. Why is it that EACH time a selection was made to create a billboard for the NY Giants Super Bowl quest they went on to win and the ONLY time this selection did not take place, thanks to individuals such as the FatMan and his groupies, the Giants lost?
What is that about?
i am sure that you can find an answer to that in your version of science.
Science would like an apology from you for your insult, Al.
Any answer to an investigation (question) without unambiguous (non-statistical) empirical evidence is nothing more than a speculation. And if you use statistical data to support a speculation, you are still left with a speculation, i.e., scientific method.
No matter who made this selection, fans or myself, the results have always been the same. Another question that bothers me is why is this billboard phenomenon tied exclusively to the NY Giants? Since Super Bowl XXI and after 12 years and 32 unique potential selections, why has a direct selection ONLY been for the NY Giants?
You are correct about statistical sampling being "gobbledygook". The protocol of current predictive scientific methods uses repetition (sampling) to establish causality. As the findings show, the two acts of selection which are NECESSARY to conduct any and all experiments (cause), are not singular. This means that statistical sampling is unavoidably based on omitted-variable bias which can only obtain false-positive data regardless of repetition.
ANY method that uses prediction (guess) to establish validity of a theory/hypotheses (guess) can only obtain an assumption (guess).
However, if sampling is your measure of validity then chew on this sample: There has NEVER been or EVER will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made... NEVER!
I apologize for getting technical. All the more reason why I only asked for people to do a simple keyword search for a chance of getting some NY Giants Super Bowl LE prints.
the banner dooshbag...this guy was all over BCWC and then came here.
You are confused. The Giants fans you call "dooshbags" were voting for their team. I cannot since I was hosting the competition. Fortunately, the Giants fans at the NYG official forum voted for their team and made it happen for SB XLII.
the banner dooshbag...this guy was all over BCWC and then came here.
You are confused. The Giants fans you call "dooshbags" were voting for their team. I cannot since I was hosting the competition. Fortunately, the Giants fans at the NYG official forum voted for their team and made it happen for SB XLII.
Your reading comprehension sucks. He's calling you, TDexperiment, a dooshbag.
You are correct about statistical sampling being "gobbledygook". The protocol of current predictive scientific methods uses repetition (sampling) to establish causality. As the findings show, the two acts of selection which are NECESSARY to conduct any and all experiments (cause), are not singular. This means that statistical sampling is unavoidably based on omitted-variable bias which can only obtain false-positive data regardless of repetition.
ANY method that uses prediction (guess) to establish validity of a theory/hypotheses (guess) can only obtain an assumption (guess).
However, if sampling is your measure of validity then chew on this sample: There has NEVER been or EVER will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made... NEVER!
Do not drive this guy away, please. I really enjoy posts like this. Absolutely wonderful.
RE: RE: RE: Well, we know for sure one thing science is not about:
You are correct about statistical sampling being "gobbledygook". The protocol of current predictive scientific methods uses repetition (sampling) to establish causality. As the findings show, the two acts of selection which are NECESSARY to conduct any and all experiments (cause), are not singular. This means that statistical sampling is unavoidably based on omitted-variable bias which can only obtain false-positive data regardless of repetition.
ANY method that uses prediction (guess) to establish validity of a theory/hypotheses (guess) can only obtain an assumption (guess).
However, if sampling is your measure of validity then chew on this sample: There has NEVER been or EVER will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made... NEVER!
Do not drive this guy away, please. I really enjoy posts like this. Absolutely wonderful.
Wait, nope, the real scientists think you're a quack too.
Kicker, you should not comment on what it is you do not know. For researchers to cite my findings they need to prove them wrong, in order to avoid embarrassment, or adopt them in their research. No one can prove my findings wrong because they are based on reality, not statistical inference or conjecture.
This brings me to why I am giving away the NY Giants Super Bowl LE print set to the football fan who conducts the most keyword searches by December 23, 2015. So far one Giants fan has sent me her preliminary findings. Out of 11,600,000 search results, she found only one document at Google Scholar with BOTH keywords "direct selection experiment" and "indirect selection experiment". I have not reviewed the document so I cannot confirm the context of how these two terms were used.
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree? Career as a scientist - ( New Window )
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree? Career as a scientist - ( New Window )
Can't give a straight answer? In other words, you don't have any degree.
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree? Career as a scientist - ( New Window )
OK. Now we have established that you have no scientific degrees.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree?
Quote: OK. Now we have established that you have no scientific degrees.
If you knew anything about science, you would know that you do not need a degree to conduct science. Case in point, in order to invalidate the Tempt Destiny experimental findings all you have to do is continue your existence without the capacity to select, i.e., the Final Selection Thought Experiment as detailed at the TemptDestiny.com home page.
Please let me know in advance when you will put your money (life) where your mouth is by conducting the experiment in real life. Once you begin the experiment you will no longer able to communicate to tell people how stupid you were to test Nature's laws. Then again you will not need to, your actions will speak for themselves. GO FOR IT!
Case in point, if you get a degree in science, such a degree does not mean you are a practitioner of the art of science. It only means you have formal documentation of such studies. You need to apply such knowledge and then have it published in order to be a practitioner of the art. To the layman ignorant of science they are the ones who need formal documentation from those who speak of science due to their lack education on the topic, formal or otherwise. I find, as exhibited from the comments made here, that the ignorant are too lazy or stupid to do their own research themselves when given the opportunity to support their own words.
I do not hide behind a piece of paper or the fact that scientific journals and researchers have submitted their papers to me for review as credentials of my knowledge of science. Everyone has the means to openly contest my findings via the Final Selection Thought Experiment. However, if you lack the integrity of your convictions you will continue to revert to criticism of what you have cowardly failed to refute or have failed to understand. It all comes down to this, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
most ill informed posts in the history of BBI - and that says a lot. You've pretty much taken a shit on any legitimate scientist and are saying that their degrees are useless.
what's next, telling doctors that their medical degrees are little more than toilet paper? You are the exact reason they hand out degrees for science. To separate quacks from legitimate researchers.
Here are just a few images of what you can win if you
If you are correct then why not show the world that the findings are wrong? Surely someone as knowledgeable as yourself can do so.
Make sure to contact the media about your historic stupidity to contest the laws the govern our existence. I am sure everyone will want to see this. GO FOR IT!
is simply sublime. And the clever usage of "Thinksgiving" is one of the most intriguing aspects of artwork I've ever laid eyes upon. Really really well done.
Have you seen his latest opus? It's called "Referee".
If you are correct then why not show the world that the findings are wrong? Surely someone as knowledgeable as yourself can do so.
Make sure to contact the media about your historic stupidity to contest the laws the govern our existence. I am sure everyone will want to see this. GO FOR IT!
Because no one in the world believes your shit findings?
As you know this is not about beliefs and that is why you all have exposed yourselves to be the cowards that you are. Prove the findings wrong and I will go away and thank you for doing so.
Well besides you being a repetitive nutjob that is.
Your attributing a billboard to somehow having an effect on a team. Your using coincidental results and saying: "See that proves it", when in fact it proves nothing at all. So when you ask to be proved wrong its a vapid request since you have nothing proved to be disproved. About the only thing you have proved is that you have no comprehension of what scientific data actually is
I remember those days of 58k internet bandwidth access. It was like watching paint dry.
You pointed something out that still troubles me today. Why is it that EACH time a selection was made to create a billboard for the NY Giants Super Bowl quest they went on to win and the ONLY time this selection did not take place, thanks to individuals such as the FatMan and his groupies, the Giants lost?
What is that about?
Quote:
in February 2001, not too long after the SB debacle
You pointed something out that still troubles me today. Why is it that EACH time a selection was made to create a billboard for the NY Giants Super Bowl quest they went on to win and the ONLY time this selection did not take place, thanks to individuals such as the FatMan and his groupies, the Giants lost?
What is that about?
Quote:
In comment 12613708 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
in February 2001, not too long after the SB debacle
You pointed something out that still troubles me today. Why is it that EACH time a selection was made to create a billboard for the NY Giants Super Bowl quest they went on to win and the ONLY time this selection did not take place, thanks to individuals such as the FatMan and his groupies, the Giants lost?
What is that about?
i am sure that you can find an answer to that in your version of science.
Science would like an apology from you for your insult, Al.
No matter who made this selection, fans or myself, the results have always been the same. Another question that bothers me is why is this billboard phenomenon tied exclusively to the NY Giants? Since Super Bowl XXI and after 12 years and 32 unique potential selections, why has a direct selection ONLY been for the NY Giants?
I cannot find no scientific explanation for this.
Science would like an apology from you for your insult, Al.
Science is the art of investigation of Nature, not a religion.
NY Giants Super Bowl Secret Weapon - ( New Window )
You are correct about statistical sampling being "gobbledygook". The protocol of current predictive scientific methods uses repetition (sampling) to establish causality. As the findings show, the two acts of selection which are NECESSARY to conduct any and all experiments (cause), are not singular. This means that statistical sampling is unavoidably based on omitted-variable bias which can only obtain false-positive data regardless of repetition.
ANY method that uses prediction (guess) to establish validity of a theory/hypotheses (guess) can only obtain an assumption (guess).
However, if sampling is your measure of validity then chew on this sample: There has NEVER been or EVER will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made... NEVER!
I apologize for getting technical. All the more reason why I only asked for people to do a simple keyword search for a chance of getting some NY Giants Super Bowl LE prints.
How Students And The General Public Can Confirm If Quantum Mechanics Is A Fundamental Theory Without Opening A Book - ( New Window )
And right on cue....
Scientist my ass...
And right on cue....
You are sadly mistaken. There is no "sign-up". As far as your criticism of my artwork, I am glad you will not be receiving one. Cheers!
May have to change my handle now..
You are confused. The Giants fans you call "dooshbags" were voting for their team. I cannot since I was hosting the competition. Fortunately, the Giants fans at the NYG official forum voted for their team and made it happen for SB XLII.
Quote:
the banner dooshbag...this guy was all over BCWC and then came here.
You are confused. The Giants fans you call "dooshbags" were voting for their team. I cannot since I was hosting the competition. Fortunately, the Giants fans at the NYG official forum voted for their team and made it happen for SB XLII.
Your reading comprehension sucks. He's calling you, TDexperiment, a dooshbag.
Quote:
Small samples. We are back to gobbledygook.
You are correct about statistical sampling being "gobbledygook". The protocol of current predictive scientific methods uses repetition (sampling) to establish causality. As the findings show, the two acts of selection which are NECESSARY to conduct any and all experiments (cause), are not singular. This means that statistical sampling is unavoidably based on omitted-variable bias which can only obtain false-positive data regardless of repetition.
ANY method that uses prediction (guess) to establish validity of a theory/hypotheses (guess) can only obtain an assumption (guess).
However, if sampling is your measure of validity then chew on this sample: There has NEVER been or EVER will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made... NEVER!
Do not drive this guy away, please. I really enjoy posts like this. Absolutely wonderful.
Quote:
In comment 12618874 manh george said:
Quote:
Small samples. We are back to gobbledygook.
You are correct about statistical sampling being "gobbledygook". The protocol of current predictive scientific methods uses repetition (sampling) to establish causality. As the findings show, the two acts of selection which are NECESSARY to conduct any and all experiments (cause), are not singular. This means that statistical sampling is unavoidably based on omitted-variable bias which can only obtain false-positive data regardless of repetition.
ANY method that uses prediction (guess) to establish validity of a theory/hypotheses (guess) can only obtain an assumption (guess).
However, if sampling is your measure of validity then chew on this sample: There has NEVER been or EVER will be an experiment conducted without a selection first being made... NEVER!
Do not drive this guy away, please. I really enjoy posts like this. Absolutely wonderful.
+1
Bravo; changing the world one...
Wait, nope, the real scientists think you're a quack too.
Kicker, you should not comment on what it is you do not know. For researchers to cite my findings they need to prove them wrong, in order to avoid embarrassment, or adopt them in their research. No one can prove my findings wrong because they are based on reality, not statistical inference or conjecture.
This brings me to why I am giving away the NY Giants Super Bowl LE print set to the football fan who conducts the most keyword searches by December 23, 2015. So far one Giants fan has sent me her preliminary findings. Out of 11,600,000 search results, she found only one document at Google Scholar with BOTH keywords "direct selection experiment" and "indirect selection experiment". I have not reviewed the document so I cannot confirm the context of how these two terms were used.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree?
Career as a scientist - ( New Window )
Quote:
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree? Career as a scientist - ( New Window )
Can't give a straight answer? In other words, you don't have any degree.
Quote:
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Nature/reality, is what science is based on, which does not issue degrees, man does. But since you value degrees as opposed to facts, what was Galileo's scientific degree? Career as a scientist - ( New Window )
Big Al has confirmed he's way smarter than Galileo
Quote:
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Big Al has confirmed he's way smarter than Galileo
Quote:
In comment 12621425 Big Al said:
Quote:
Can you cite your scientific degrees and school. I will cite mine. I am a graduate of PS 52 in Queens.
Big Al has confirmed he's way smarter than Galileo
I neglected to say that I won the Math Medal on graduation from PS 52.
And you didn't bring it up until now? Wow. Restraint.
This dude has a strange fascination with Nature.
And giving away shitty artwork!
Quote: OK. Now we have established that you have no scientific degrees.
If you knew anything about science, you would know that you do not need a degree to conduct science. Case in point, in order to invalidate the Tempt Destiny experimental findings all you have to do is continue your existence without the capacity to select, i.e., the Final Selection Thought Experiment as detailed at the TemptDestiny.com home page.
Please let me know in advance when you will put your money (life) where your mouth is by conducting the experiment in real life. Once you begin the experiment you will no longer able to communicate to tell people how stupid you were to test Nature's laws. Then again you will not need to, your actions will speak for themselves. GO FOR IT!
This is like a guy who uses a butter knife to spread oleo on a muffin lecturing surgeons on the methods for using a scalpel.
I do not hide behind a piece of paper or the fact that scientific journals and researchers have submitted their papers to me for review as credentials of my knowledge of science. Everyone has the means to openly contest my findings via the Final Selection Thought Experiment. However, if you lack the integrity of your convictions you will continue to revert to criticism of what you have cowardly failed to refute or have failed to understand. It all comes down to this, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
No one cites his work because it's all bullshit. Not only is he a laughingstock in science, but his fingerpaintings fucking suck.
what's next, telling doctors that their medical degrees are little more than toilet paper? You are the exact reason they hand out degrees for science. To separate quacks from legitimate researchers.
Just look at that; neo-realistic nature at it's finest.
And, of course, the centerpiece of his collection:
Make sure to contact the media about your historic stupidity to contest the laws the govern our existence. I am sure everyone will want to see this. GO FOR IT!
Have you seen his latest opus? It's called "Referee".
Make sure to contact the media about your historic stupidity to contest the laws the govern our existence. I am sure everyone will want to see this. GO FOR IT!
Because no one in the world believes your shit findings?
So I don't have to do any work.
No sane, normal person exhibits this kind of repetitive and obsessive behavior.
This guy has a hell of a lot more in common with Terrance Howward than a half-competent artist.
Like I said above, creating a faux science site under the guise of peddling shitty artwork isn't science - it is a scam.
I have an advertising slogan: Manuel Morales - bad artist, shittier scientist.
Your attributing a billboard to somehow having an effect on a team. Your using coincidental results and saying: "See that proves it", when in fact it proves nothing at all. So when you ask to be proved wrong its a vapid request since you have nothing proved to be disproved. About the only thing you have proved is that you have no comprehension of what scientific data actually is