Trinity news, coca cola, and random blitherings

Boston

FionnMatthew wrote:

Would you, then, advocate abolishing the democratic structures by which the students are represented? Would you abolish representation for the student body?

If I were to conduct a statistical experiment, in a test group, for s specific condition, I'd get a percentage divide like 33%-77%. That statistic stands as it was taken. It isn't disproven by the fact that there are 6 billion other people in the world who weren't in the test group. You might cast doubts about the statistical irregularity. But the info for the 6 billion other people is indeterminate until a new experiment is conducted. For whatever purpose I conducted that first experiment, that information is representative.

I've actually studies states, so don't try and use your witchcraft on me. Theres all types of systems to set how far your sample deviates from the norm.

The kernel of this is that the TN should respect the majority of people who do have an opinion.

Indifferent is an opinion.

FionnMatthew

LiouVille wrote:

wow, way to twist my point. Bravo. Majority of peope don't care enought to be insulted by the article. The orginal issue was people pretending the opposite, that everyone was/should be insulted.

I don't think that was the kernel of the original issue. I think there was a point there - he was drawing attention to the TN's act, not necessarily the weight of representation on either side. I think you engaged in pedantry in order to shoot it down -deliberately taking a rather narrow interpretation of what Spectator#1 said.

Spectator's issue is described best here: "I think other students should consider just how derisive putting that ad in was of them as well, regardless of their position on the Coke ban."

And you can (and have) agreed in principle(when you conceded that it could, conditionally, be an insult to the voters) that it could be considered a derisive move, regardless of your position on the Coke ban, be it for, against, or indifferent. And the most polite thing for you to have done would have been "Well, perhaps, but I don't think anyone will care", instead of launching into an attack on a stereotyped straw-man.

LiouVille wrote:

Since you're so intelligent, you'd realise John isn't a moderator of this forum.

There you go again. You're really very aggressive. And presumptious.

I didn't realise John wasn't a mod here. Recognizing this isn't a necessary precondition of my having intelligence. It is, however, a sorry state of affairs, because while John's needless arrogance could be attributed to not having read the thread properly, Nietzschean has no such excuse.

Boston

FionnMatthew wrote:

I don't think that was the kernel of the original issue. I think there was a point there - he was drawing attention to the TN's act, not necessarily the weight of representation on either side. I think you engaged in pedantry in order to shoot it down -deliberately taking a rather narrow interpretation of what Spectator#1 said.

Spectator's issue is described best here: "I think other students should consider just how derisive putting that ad in was of them as well, regardless of their position on the Coke ban."

And you can (and have) agreed in principle(when you conceded that it could, conditionally, be an insult to the voters) that it could be considered a derisive move, regardless of your position on the Coke ban, be it for, against, or indifferent. And the most polite thing for you to have done would have been "Well, perhaps, but I don't think anyone will care", instead of launching into an attack on a stereotyped straw-man.


There you go again. You're really very aggressive. And presumptious.

I didn't realise John wasn't a mod here. Recognizing this isn't a necessary precondition of my having intelligence. It is, however, a sorry state of affairs, because while John's needless arrogance could be attributed to not having read the thread properly, Nietzschean has no such excuse.

You see, I know what words like kernal and straw man mean. You're not confusing anyone mate.

FionnMatthew

Indifferent is an opinion.

It's not. It's to say "I don't have an opinion".

FionnMatthew

LiouVille wrote:

You see, I know what words like kernal and straw man mean. You're not confusing anyone mate.

You're just trying to get a rise out of me now. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. Are you afraid of precise language? That's this populist distrust of educated discourse again.

I'm not surprised you know what a straw-man is. I gave you the definition back in #62.

PS
"Kernal" is a component of the Commodore 64. Congratualations, "mate".

Boston

FionnMatthew wrote:

You're just trying to get a rise out of me now. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. Are you afraid of precise language? That's this populist distrust of educated discourse again.

I'm not surprised you know what a straw-man is. I gave you the definition back in #62.

PS
"Kernal" is a component of the Commodore 64. Congratualations, "mate".

Ha, proof, if proof was need, that you only know what you look up on wiki.

xebec

I really didn't want to get involved in this, but I'm getting quite bored of the circles that this argument is going in and there's a few things I want to comment briefly on.

FionnMatthew wrote:

If I were to conduct a statistical experiment, in a test group, for s specific condition, I'd get a percentage divide like 33%-77%. That statistic stands as it was taken. It isn't disproven by the fact that there are 6 billion other people in the world who weren't in the test group. You might cast doubts about the statistical irregularity. But the info for the 6 billion other people is indeterminate until a new experiment is conducted. For whatever purpose I conducted that first experiment, that information is representative.

This is partly correct. A statistical test is very different to a poll or a vote. With a statistical test you would have to account for the fact that the opinion of the population could be very different to what you have found in your sample. This would be done by measuring standard deviations, variance, t-statistics etc etc. This approach can neither be used to definitively prove or disprove an argument like is being made above, you can only show that there is a likelihood that what has been found is correct which also allows for a likelihood that what has been found is incorrect.

Unfortunately from the statistics point of view a poll or vote has no standard deviation, hence the fact that decisions are made this way and the fact that the result is taken as representative of the whole population. Statistically it can't be viewed as otherwise.

People often make very incorrect observations when it comes to statistics and probability, what you have said isn't entirely incorrect, but it's not entirely correct either.

FionnMatthew wrote:

The kernel of this is that the TN should respect the majority of people who do have an opinion. People who registered their opinion, who made it count. People who don't care - they'll have it either way - the subtext is "let the people who care decide". And they have done so. And to do something to upset a majority of people who actually registered that they cared, and hence made it the mandate of the student body as a whole - that's questionable.

Personally I don't agree with TN not using Coke advertising. If that is what is necessary to produce the paper then I am all for it. TN are independent of the Union and therefore in no way should they have to comply with the mandate of the Union.

It all comes down to ethics, if people are ethically against TN using Coca Cola as an advertiser then they should make it known by not reading the paper (unfortunately this doesn't have the same effect on a free paper as it does on a paid for paper) and writing to the editor with a complaint. I won't be taking either of those steps, I'll enjoy my bottle of Coke while reading the next issue.

FionnMatthew

LiouVille wrote:

Ha, proof, if proof was need, that you only know what you look up on wiki.

Proof, if proof was needed, that LiouVille feels he/she's lost a lot of ground on this thread.

By the way, you don't have proof. I got my "kernal" definition here. That's called affirming the consequent.

FionnMatthew

xebec wrote:

It all comes down to ethics, if people are ethically against TN using Coca Cola as an advertiser then they should make it known by not reading the paper (unfortunately this doesn't have the same effect on a free paper as it does on a paid for paper) and writing to the editor with a complaint. I won't be taking either of those steps, I'll enjoy my bottle of Coke while reading the next issue.

This is the manner of reply which, I assume, Spectator was looking for. No personal attacks, rash generalisations etc. This is how you do it, LiouVille.

Boston

I didn't personally attack Spectator, it was the other way around.

FionnMatthew

LiouVille wrote:

I didn't personally attack Spectator, it was the other way around.

I don't follow you. I think you hurled the first stone.

Spectator initially replied to you with post #16. This post is rather civil to you personally, and takes issue, in a rather level way, with your own argument.

He didn't really address you thereafter, taking issue mostly with Nietzschean, right up until #27, where you offer your first instance of a long stream of personal invective, which was the beginning of your agon.

People like you ... really annoy me, ... you ...are will to twist anything you want to suit [your] agenda.

This is ad hominem argument, otherwise characterised as "attacking the person."

CmcC

Why won't Daddy stop fighting with Mommy?

Nietzschean

don't have time to read this crap now, will later

Nietzschean

Louiville, Boston, Spectator #1 and FionnMatthew all banned.

Boston, Spectator #1 and FionnMatthew permnantly.

Louiville for 2 weeks.

Crash

Just to add onto this, any attempts to use accounts to circumvent bans will result in permabans for both accounts from the boards, and most likely further bans from the site.