Indian pitches: a veritable graveyard for bowlers!

[Bongosamaj]

Lets see a facking link to that effect moron ....

i did BETTER, moron. I provided you with an ACTUAL TEXTBOOK - ISBN # 0-15-545965-1 When it comes to serious stuff (like math), i don't deal with wikipedia or other no-name websites, chump. I quoted you DIRECTLY from what is considered an AUTHORITY in statistical analysis. And MY reference is quotable ANYWHERE- including in a research thesis. Your precious wikipedia or no-name personal URLS are INADMISSIBLE in a thesis defence. So in short, i did BETTER than you asked, champ.

And are you now suggesting that the Arizona State Univ is providing incomplete if not wrong stuff on their websites ...

What i am suggesting is that any website with " ~" in their URL is a PERSONAL HOMEPAGE of some noname student/employee whatever and has ZERO credibility. If you wern't such a liar about your qualifications, you'd know that NO UNIVERSITY accepts quotations of a website with "~" in the URL as it is a PERSONAL PAGE with ZERO link to the academics of the said university. Comprende ?

And ohh didnt you initially say that the Universal set and subset thingy was the "Corollary of Demorgans Theorem and not the basis for his theorem as you now seen to allude to ... what happened chump ?

It is the basis of the corollary, dumba$$. Freaking-DUH! Your lack of English skills letting you down again. Now, be a good boy and concede the point- you didnt know wtf you were talking about and i PROVED you wrong. I gave you a MATH TEXTBOOK, i quoted you the author, the page # and the ISBN #. That level of documentation is admissible in a thesis defence, champ. So you CANNOT ask me for any further documentation. Comprende ? So much for your stats degree....LIAR!

[Bongosamaj]

Its really shocking to see not even a single mod intervening in this till now. Long live freedom of speech !

When you have pathetic individuals like BB as the mod, what can you expect of the moderation team ? The loser is arguing against MATH textbook, trying to wiggle his way out of the simple FACT that deMorgan defined the universal set as a subset of itself. That is BASIC set-theory. Yet this loser claims degrees in engineering, compsci and statistics. When you come across lying losers like this dude, its well worth the time to destroy their facade once and for all. Besides, i've got the beast by the nape of his neck...not the time to quit.

[Ram]

When you have pathetic individuals like BB as the mod, what can you expect of the moderation team ? The loser is arguing against MATH textbook, trying to wiggle his way out of the simple FACT that deMorgan defined the universal set as a subset of itself. That is BASIC set-theory. Yet this loser claims degrees in engineering, compsci and statistics. When you come across lying losers like this dude, its well worth the time to destroy their facade once and for all.

Are you here to discuss cricket , or you here to prove a point ? The majority of us are here to discuss cricket. I think you get my point. If you are really so interested in exposing some one else's inadequacies in whatever nonsense, create a separate thread in general discussions and continue your slander match to your heart's content. LEAVE CRICKET DISCUSSIONS ALONE !

[Bongosamaj]

Are you here to discuss cricket , or you here to prove a point ? The majority of us are here to discuss cricket. I think you get my point. If you are really so interested in exposing some one else's inadequacies in whatever nonsense, create a separate thread in general discussions and continue your slander match to your heart's content. LEAVE CRICKET DISCUSSIONS ALONE !

This does relate to cricket, maris. I am proving the point that BossBhai is a LIAR about his qualifications and that he DOES NOT understand statistical analysis. Since this entire thread is based on statistical analysis, my proof is directly relevant and goes a long way to show what a hack he is, trying to peddle nonsensical numerological manipulations as facts. I didn't figure the chap to be THIS ignorant. First me makes wrong statement about boolean logic, then Venn and finally i proved it beyond a SHADOW of a doubt that this hack doesn't even know the BASICS of statistics. Thus, this destroys his own 'thesis' about statistics in this thread, rending his case inert. From now on, if you read his little number-game of cricket stats, know that it is nothing more than the opinion of an egotistical jingoist, not a fact as he claims. For a man who doesn't understand the ABCD of statistical analysis cannot claim a statistical analysis of his own as fact.

[Ram]

This does relate to cricket' date=' maris.[/quote'] This thread has been anything BUT cricket in the last many posts. Its been more about you two having a free-for-all slander match with each other. Find me the word cricket in any of last dozen posts and i will accept your line then.

I am proving the point that BossBhai is a LIAR about his qualifications and that he DOES NOT understand statistical analysis. Since this entire thread is based on statistical analysis, my proof is directly relevant and goes a long way to show what a hack he is, trying to peddle nonsensical numerological manipulations as facts. I didn't figure the chap to be THIS ignorant. First me makes wrong statement about boolean logic, then Venn and finally i proved it beyond a SHADOW of a doubt that this hack doesn't even know the BASICS of statistics. Thus, this destroys his own 'thesis' about statistics in this thread, rending his case inert.

Look dude, this is a message board, where we fans and followers come and look for cricket stuff. This is NOT the place for you to settle your personal scores with whoever it is. And what is it with you proving some one as a lier/prophet ? Give it a rest. And if you really insist , go ahead and create a SEPARATE thread in general discussions and continue. No one is stopping you from doing that. With your ridiculous stress in targeting one poster, whether it be right or wrong , you are just spoiling the atmosphere here. Simple as that.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

And BB , for you too. If you guys want to really settle scores that badly , go right ahead in general discussions. You guys are basically hijacking an entire forum.

[Bongosamaj]

Who the fack gave you the right to talk about my moderation ?

Who the fack said i need some right/authorization to critique your moderation, champ ?

especially when Iam no longer a mod ... ?

You think i am stupid ? I know how ban-happy you are...now that you've been reigned in and had your teeth pulled out by the ICF team, i am no longer under the threat of ban for exposing your lying undereducated a$$ for what it is. Simple logic, no ?

? who the fack do you think your are CC ?

Someone who is your superior in mathematics.

Harami doo take ka kutta ...

:haha::haha::haha: Proof positive that you've lost the case.

is that why no links are forthcomming from your side

The link is not comming because i cannot be ar$ed to find a PROPER website on this. requires too much proof-reading, since i am actually talking sense, not trying to evade like your 50paise ka malformed-a$$ And the link is not comming because I did BETTER than a link- i quoted you PRECISELY from a math book.

as oppsed to 3 links from me ?

3 bakwaas links. 1 is wikipedia, 2 is personal homepages of some no-name unreliable person. My documentation is admissible in a thesis defence. your's is not. So stop WHINING about links. I gave you EVERYTHING you need to know - author's name, page #, name of book and the ISBN #.

the usual lying thru the teeth just because nobody challenges you

That is you, champ, not me. Lying through your teeth about your 3-4 university level degrees, including one in stats when you don't know the ABCD of stats as this thread shows.

Iam here to purge crap weasels like you from this site even if it means getting down and dirty to your level

Vatz, as this thread shows, i am beyond your ability. Sooner you learn that, the better for you.

others are shy so I have taken it upon myself to do the honors

And gotten promptly humiliated in the process..Bravo! can't fault your effort though, even though your intellect is questionable.

I know your type very well that hide behind the luxury of a anonymous MB

It is well known that people here know my personal info. As far as hiding goes- i already OFFERED to come pay you a visit or meet up with you in my hometown of Vancouver. What happened, coward ? Just let me know anytime- son. Anytime. Your type doesnt even make me break sweat- mentally or physically. Thats how 'tucchha' you are.

who dont have any guts to indulge in meaningfull fact based debates

I don't engage in a meaningful fact based debate when the opposition (you) is not debating facts but opinions.

but are here to massage their fragile egos ...

Look in the mirror, champ.

Lets see what you got ..starting with some links ... I aint going nowhere till I see some links ...

And i did better than links. Comprende, senor ? I delivered MORE than what you asked! Not your crapfest links of no substance- but a genuine book of mathematics with ALL the information revealed about it. What i provided as evidence is immaculate and beyond reproach and can EASILY be picked up at any university library or even a reputable public library. You have no basis/authority for asking for more. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, LIAR.

[Rajiv]

Joy, Moderation team will let you know what you can expect of them. I apologize if they haven't lived up to your expecation Meanwhile, this thread was supposed to auto-exhaust but looks like we have 2 Turbo Charged 1000 BHP on a crash course and before my Inbox blows up with complaints ~~LOCKED~~ Until Further Notice and Goodnight

[Dhondy]

sorry doc, you are mistaken. You will find that I've already stated my case- error analysis is a MUST for any statistics to be taken accurately, even when there is no error in sampling. Sampling error is not the same as modelling error and modelling rror + sampling error is the cumulative error in a statistical survey. I am sure you are aware of this and i'd expect our fellow 4-degree holding Bossbhai to be aware of this. Unless ofcourse, he lied about it in his usual fashion.

I don't like the term "modelling error". It's a term used by geeks, and has little meaning. I presume you are talking about measurement error? Fine. Any measurement can have an error, and this particularly holds true if you are making multiple measurements of something, for example, the amount of base required to titrate a given amount of acid. Such errors are estimable, as they follow the Poisson distribution. But CC, these errors are incurred under experimental conditions, or in demographics . What is their relevance to the sort of analyses Boss has run here? I don't know if you realise, but the only errors that are applicable to cricket are database errors. If there's a mistake in Boss' database, it'll show up in his stats. However, he is not "measuring" something, as you guys do in physical sciences, or we do in demographics. The runs scored, wickets taken, or catches snared in cricket are not experimental phenomena- there is no estimation involved, they are only archived for future comparison, and hence the question of measurement error does not arise. If you disagree, you need to tell us specifically what type of error you feel we ought to be looking at in this particular context, with appropriate examples. Remember, database errors are not measurement errors.