Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:54:54 GMT
Message-ID: <yzMog.3578$pu3.87352_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> Dammit! I deliberately omitted part of the story here, but doing
> so is dishonest.
>
> To address the issue of which of us is more accurate: Bob is.
> My own record is littered with false negatives, while Bob's
> false positive rate is comparatively low. It pisses me off
> to say so.
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:54:54 GMT
Message-ID: <yzMog.3578$pu3.87352_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
>>I view it in an information-theoretic sense: if his crank-detection >>gain >>is turned up, as it were, relative to me, then he'll have more correct >>identifications and more false positives, and I'll have more correct >>rejections and more false negatives. This does not address the >>issue of which of us is more accurate,
>
> Dammit! I deliberately omitted part of the story here, but doing
> so is dishonest.
>
> To address the issue of which of us is more accurate: Bob is.
> My own record is littered with false negatives, while Bob's
> false positive rate is comparatively low. It pisses me off
> to say so.
I commend you on your honesty and your character. In the past three years or so, you have learned a lot from what you picked up here and what you took a lot farther, and I attribute that largely to your intellectual honesty and your character. (Some others would do well to take note of that because it suggests a real opportunity to benefit from Marshall's example.)
I wonder why it pisses you off. Regardless, it shows strength of character to say it in spite of your emotional response. Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 10:54:54 CEST