Things you like that most other people don't like that you're not proud of

[KrazyHorse]

Sampling ONLY HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING AMONG IGNORANT AMERICAN POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL OBSERVERS

It became a buzzword, apparently, among a bunch of people who don't know **** about statistics. I made it clear via my question (asked in good faith) that I was NOT already aware of the controversy. In THAT CONTEXT Che's response was ridiculous. All he knew about the issue was the term "sampling" which was a "modern statistical technique". A few talking heads abusing a term during, as I said, a tempest in a teapot a DECADE AGO does not change the ****ing definition of well-worn terms. It just makes the people abusing the terms retards.

[Drake Tungsten]

Clearly the US gene pool has been adversely affected by the large number of Lebanese in our country.

It just makes the people abusing the terms retards.

Kind of like Montrealers and shish taouk, eh?

[KrazyHorse]

**** it. Words should just mean whatever I think they should mean. Even if they're technical words which have precise definitions among practitioners of quantitative disciplines.

[KrazyHorse]

Clearly the US gene pool has been adversely affected by the large number of Lebanese in our country.

It just makes the people abusing the terms retards.

Kind of like Montrealers and shish taouk, eh?

I can proudly say that I've never used the term "shish taouk" to refer to the wrong food...

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, you're smarter than the average Canuck. You even managed to escape to Baltimore.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, you're smarter than the average Canuck

This is true. However, we can see that the depth of American ignorance is far greater on the "sampling" issue than is the depth of Montreal ignorance on "shish taouk". After all, I'm not even close to an expert of eastern Mediterranean foods and I managed to avoid the pitfalls, while Kuci looks like a mathematician (at night...in a fog) yet he's still defending "sampling".

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, I'd like to claim this as easily the most inane discussion I've had in the past few months.

[Kuciwalker]

**** it. Words should just mean whatever I think they should mean. Even if they're technical words which have precise definitions among practitioners of quantitative disciplines.

This is rich coming from the person who insists on using his definition instead of the one everyone else who knows about the issue already uses.

[KrazyHorse]

That is the most ****ing retarded argument you've come up with so far.

"Sampling" has a WELL-WORN specific meaning when used in the context of statistics. A decade ago, a bunch of ignoramuses hijacked it for a period of a few weeks (months?) on the American political stage. This does NOT change the fundamental meaning of the word. Especially not when there are perfectly reasonable phrases which could be used in its stead AND WHICH ARE USED BY ALL NON-RETARDS (as even the ****ing wikipedia article on census 2000 demonstrates). Centuries of understanding of the word BOTH AS A TECHNICAL TERM AND IN COMMON USAGE (sampling is the PROCESS OF OBTAINING A SAMPLE, for ****'s sake) beats a couple of weeks on CNN and in Congress a decade ago. It was nothing but a buzzword then and it's nothing but an antiquated buzzword now.

[KrazyHorse]

You can't even ****ing define "sampling" in the context of the 2000 US census. Neither can SCOTUS. Awesome.

[Kuciwalker]

"Sampling" has a WELL-WORN specific meaning when used in the context of statistics.

It also has a well-worn specific meaning in the context of the particular debate you were inquiring about. It is perfectly reasonable for him to use it there, because everyone else familiar with the debate will understand exactly what he means; in fact, in that specific context it will IMPROVE the chance that someone will understand what he means.

[KrazyHorse]

Listen to yourself before you post, you prat: "everybody familiar with the debate will be enlightened by his use of a term which is meaningless to all others outside the debate"



The people who were familiar with the debate already knew what he was talking about. The people outside the debate had NO ****ING CLUE what he meant because the term he used was so ridiculously broad as to include all methods of counting. THAT IS WHY THE TERM "SAMPLING" IS ****ING RETARDED WHEN USED LIKE THAT. It conveys NO INFORMATION TO ANYBODY. It wasn't even helpful to me as a google search term. More useful would have been "adjustment" which is WHAT THE ****ING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ITSELF USES.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and he himself had no idea what "sampling" meant in the context of the 2000 census. Neither did you, as you had no idea about statistical imputation as used by the Census bureau. This is a clear demonstration of why throwing in a term as broad as "sampling" is worse than useless; it does nothing to alleviate ignorance, while giving the impression that it has.

[Kuciwalker]

Listen to yourself before you post, you prat: "everybody familiar with the debate will be enlightened by his use of a term which is meaningless to all others outside the debate"

Yes. There's no reason che needs to be familiar with statistical terminology when he has all of the essential facts correct:

1) The census bureau wanted to introduce statistical methods that would [among other things] reduce the undercounting of urban minorities.
2) The Republicans* raised a big stink about it in the press and in the courts, ostensibly because of the constitutionality but really because of the obvious electoral implications.
3) As a result [via SCOTUS] the methods were forbidden, perpetuating the undercounting of urban minorities.

You latched onto his imprecise/inaccurate use of a term where the imprecision or inaccuracy didn't really have any material consequences for the issue, and then insulted him. Which, yeah, was pretty inane.

*I recalled it as being more multifaceted, but whatever

edit: and given your own expressed belief that SCOTUS is essentially a political court, you can't pretend that the specifics of the methods mattered all that much

[KrazyHorse]

Yes. There's no reason che needs to be familiar with statistical terminology when he has all of the essential facts correct:

Pick what you're defending, you weasel. Either you're simply defending his use of the term or you're not. If you're not restricting yourself to defense of the term then we are on to discussion of substance. And I've already explained my criticism of the substance of his post. Note that you earlier dismissed this criticism as having nothing to do with what you were attempting to defend, namely his use of the term "sampling" as a "modern statistical technique".