More Farage wisdom

[sasguru]

The OP's misuse of "anecdotal" was a semantic error, not a grammatical error.

HTH

Even worse. TBH, I couldn't wade through all his tedious, irrelevant, claptrap to identify every egregious misunderstanding/error he made.
It's my fault for engaging with plankton.

[alluvial]

Oh dear.
All your pretentious, ungrammatical twaddle does not take away from the fact that you haven't grasped the basic statistical argument that if a group consisting of two populations produces more than average then either both groups are above average (on average), or one produces considerably more than the other (on average).
You've arbitrarily and irrelevantly introduced a variable that is not related to the population factors that we are trying to understand, by your own admission, contrary to all principles of mathematical modelling.
You gave some convoluted example of what you ungrammatically called "anecdotal", which was completely wrong.

Thanks for playing, I have you accurately filed under "ex poly- if that".
Probably best if you go back to your low-level IT work, its clear you have not, and never will, play with the big boys - that also explains your lack of understanding of what goes on in London.

Time and again on fora you see the same sad failures resorting to pointing out grammatical errors when they can't truly defend their positions. This, with name calling is your normal fall-back position when you realise that your arguments have failed.

You purport to be a statistical genius and then you take a ridiculous position and try to back it up with a ridiculously simplistic analysis that would make a kindergarten maths teacher blush.

You believe that immigrants have made a net contribution because they are in the majority and London is so successful. A fallacious assertion because you have based your conclusion on limited evidence. I then show you that you cannot take that position because if other factors, that you haven't considered, are taken in to account, then London could still be successful even with a large number of immigrants making an overall negative contribution.

You're obviously some Walter Mitty character that sits in his bedsit watching University Challenge and making believe he knew the answer when it is given. In reality, you are a sad man building fantasies of academic success and trying to convince the world that he is clever.

I have you filed under "sad pratt, best ignore."

[alluvial]

The OP's misuse of "anecdotal" was a semantic error, not a grammatical error.

HTH

Actually I was taking exception to his conflation of "anecdotal evidence" with "personal evidence" and trying, albeit unsuccessfully perhaps, to explain that the two are not the same and that anecdotal evidence can sometimes hide a truth.

[sasguru]

Time and again on fora you see the same sad failures resorting to pointing out grammatical errors when they can't truly defend their positions. This, with name calling is your normal fall-back position when you realise that your arguments have failed.

You purport to be a statistical genius and then you take a ridiculous position and try to back it up with a ridiculously simplistic analysis that would make a kindergarten maths teacher blush.

You believe that immigrants have made a net contribution because they are in the majority and London is so successful. A fallacious assertion because you have based your conclusion on limited evidence. I then show you that you cannot take that position because if other factors, that you haven't considered, are taken in to account, then London could still be successful even with a large number of immigrants making an overall negative contribution.

You're obviously some Walter Mitty character that sits in his bedsit watching University Challenge and making believe he knew the answer when it is given. In reality, you are a sad man building fantasies of academic success and trying to convince the world that he is clever.

I have you filed under "sad pratt, best ignore."

As others have noted your errors were semantic not grammatical.
Look it up if you don't understand what that means.
You have totally failed to read anything I've said, picking and choosing what you think I said.
You're a bog standard cretin.

HTH, BIDI

[sasguru]

You did go to a poly, though, didn't you?

[sasguru]

Actually I was taking exception to his conflation of "anecdotal evidence" with "personal evidence" and trying, albeit unsuccessfully perhaps, to explain that the two are not the same and that anecdotal evidence can sometimes hide a truth.

A classic example of your bollux.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[speling bee]

As others have noted your errors were semantic not grammatical.
Look it up if you don't understand what that means.
You have totally failed to read anything I've said, picking and choosing what you think I said.
You're a bog standard cretin.

HTH, BIDI

If he has failed to read anything you have said, how did he pick and choose what he thinks you said?

Do you mean that he did read what you said but failed to comprehend it?

[sasguru]

If he has failed to read anything you have said, how did he pick and choose what he thinks you said?

Do you mean that he did read what you said but failed to comprehend it?

Yes the latter. His obtuse grammatical style must be catching.
How's it going, anyway, speling bee?

[speling bee]

Yes the latter. His obtuse grammatical style must be catching.
How's it going, anyway, speling bee?

It is an arduous journey, preserving the purity of the written language among such ill-educated cretins.

[sasguru]

It is an arduous journey, preserving the purity of the written language among such ill-educated cretins.