Quote:The problem you're having is your emotion is stopping you from admitting that the statement I made earlier is correct.


My argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus he's on the Mike Mularky level."


Your argument: "Gus has shown that he can't scheme a defense better than the great Mike Mularky could. Thus we can draw no conclusions about Gus's ability to scheme a defense compared with Mike Mularky."


You're asserting that the first part of the statement is wrong, while it's already proven through simple statistics. Your emotional desire to hang on to what you want to be the case is what's causing your second statement (we can't draw conclusions from the concrete results) and also causing you to cling to it instead of accepting you're wrong.

Lol. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You're way off base.


I'll try to dumb this down for you one last time.

My argument is not what you stated it is this:


Nothing can be learned from the comparison you are trying to make.

Any differential is so negligible that it's rendered useless and the variables affecting the two sets being compared have already made the comparison moot.

---