The statement is correct but the example is flawed on so many levels we can laugh at it.

Remember this, have never had an issue with the statement.

I do feel the flaws caused the reaction.

I am perfectly happy to continue to disagree with you and consider your view of the situation an opinion rather than fact.

JFDI (U1657)

What is flawed?

Please do tell us these specific flaws you believe you've identified.

The flaws are many, and can be argued. If you are as clever as you would like us to think you are I shouldn't need to tell you.

The main one here is that everyone has the right to look at the stats their own way and if they choose to they can argue, ridicule or dismiss the statement, if they so wish.

JFDI (U1657)

haha - you are becoming pathetic now.

I've never claimed to be clever - but nice to see your frustrations shining through.

You have not named a single flaw, but continue to tell me that what he said is flawed.

You are all over the place.

Why?

Because you refuse to admit you made a mistake.

This is pitiful.

No frustrations, I was merely basing your behaviour and position on any point discussed as being de-facto.

I have described a flaw as I see it. I said there was nothing wrong with what he said but the examples are flawed.

I am trying to stick to the points you raise, if I am all over the place it is only because you are leading the conversation, I simply reply to your posts.

It is pitiful, but I can live with it.

"I have described a flaw as I see it. I said there was nothing wrong with what he said but the examples are flawed."

So it's flawed because it contains flaws.

Is that really your best attempt?

Oh my.

Sometimes you just need to stand back and applaud. That is quite spectacular.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 minutes ago
JFDI (U1657)

'Perfect'

An inappropriate description of something like this - it is open to all sorts of misinterpretation.

What he said, from a logic perspective, is perfectly sound. The principle that the defence has performed okay/well (using the best team in the league as a marker) except for one game is absolutely credible. Not remotely flawed.

Do I agree with him? Nope.

Doesn't mean what he said is flawed though - and there's a big difference between criticising a comment and calling it flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally what I wanted.

Of course you can discount an anomoly, if it is exactly that, an anomoly, an abberation, something that goes against the norm.

Winston wins via TKO

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
"I have described a flaw as I see it. I said there was nothing wrong with what he said but the examples are flawed."

So it's flawed because it contains flaws.

Is that really your best attempt?

Oh my.

Sometimes you just need to stand back and applaud. That is quite spectacular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes they are, he uses one example when somebody else can chose to use another, if it was not flawed, then you could not do this.

JFDI (U1657)

What are you going on about?

What example?

I don't think you even know what the word 'flaw' actually means, do you?

Winston Like I said, I never read anything 2 or 3 comments prior to my first comment...I simply picked a comment & a side and ran with it.

Now I have actually seen what it is you two were squabbling over, its obvious that JFDI doesn't understand what is or has been said at any point during this whole thing

And it is now becoming painful to read.

And I don't even think he is wumming, which is the most incredible thing

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
JFDI (U1657)

What are you going on about?

What example?

I don't think you even know what the word 'flaw' actually means, do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By examples I mean the stats.

The definition of flaw or flawed is simple enough. we went through it not many posts back. If I didn't see the weakness in his use of stats then I wouldn't foind it so laughable.

But it is also very important to note and something you seem keen to shrug off or ignore is that I would feel the same regardless of who said it.

Jud_Danger (U10967)

Fair enough. If you're saying that even now, it must be bad.

JFDI (U1657)

You're just waffling on.

State specifically the flaw in what he said. Just one will do - though you said there's many.

Whether you think it's a weak point or not is beside the point. That doesn't make it flawed.

Read above. Even people I've argued with are cringing at your attempts to wriggle out of this.

Awful, awful stuff.

I am only wafflijng on because you are asking the same questions, I am trying simply to make my previous answers understandable as I clearly failed previously.

There are flaws in the way he has used the information. Choosing one game over another is going to provoke discussion and is the weakness.

I am not trying to wriggle out of anything, there is nowhere to hide here, as your new found supporters can testify, I am just stating my position and will continue to do so, that is what forums are about is it not?

The weakness being the example I was referring to.

JFDI (U1657)

He's chosen the game that stands out - conceding 5 goals for a United defence is an outlier, no doubt about it.

Why would you choose another game?

It wouldn't make any sense.

That is not a flaw, and you are getting desperate.

What we do now know for certain is you will never, ever admit you're wrong.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
JFDI (U1657)

He's chosen the game that stands out - conceding 5 goals for a United defence is an outlier, no doubt about it.

Why would you choose another game?

It wouldn't make any sense.

That is not a flaw, and you are getting desperate.

What we do now know for certain is you will never, ever admit you're wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In his position I would not chose another game.

But I am not in his position.

When someone chooses to pick certain stats to demonstrate something there tends to follow lengthy discussions about the validity of the stats, as there were about the stats I used earlier or when the question of who is the bigger club otr the better striker, midfielder, etc.

JFDI (U1657)

No, no one would choose another game because no other game could be defined as a statistical outlier.

How on earth do you not understand that basic point?

Why do you think that is my issue?

I have said from the start and recently that I don't have a problem with what he said but that people will look at it in different ways, and they have.

JFDI (U1657)

Why?

Because that's what you just wrote! You seem to have some serious issues.

My response was a direct reply.

Do you think if you keep talking, this will go away?

You cannot specifically say what was flawed about what he said.

Why?

Because you were wrong to say it was flawed.

I put in a statistical outlier, if you look at United over 120 years. It was disputed.

I merely did what LVG has, there were flaws in my argument as there are in LVG's.

You SAF said I can't use 20 years in a 120/140 year history.

If you break it down into scores of years, which is what I did then why not?

LVG has done what he needed to, what he wanted to, the reaction should not be a surprise, nor is it wrong for people to react that way,

JFDI (U1657)

LVG was clearly discussing this defence, this season - why would he revert to 120 years of goals?

LVG didn't do anything. He replied to a question about his defence by saying he thinks it's not been too bad.

But stop getting away from the point.

I asked you to specifically state a flaw in what he said.

You have not done it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 43 seconds ago
JFDI (U1657)

LVG was clearly discussing this defence, this season - why would he revert to 120 years of goals?

LVG didn't do anything. He replied to a question about his defence by saying he thinks it's not been too bad.

But stop getting away from the point.

I asked you to specifically state a flaw in what he said.

You have not done it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LVG was clearly discussing this defence, this season - why would he revert to 120 years of goals? What has that got to do with this, my stats were around titles won. Just an example like some SAF used.

I have told you what I believe is the flaw, time and time again, that is simply this. Whilst LVG points to the Leicester game, it can be argued that if he is going to remove any stats then other games could be used.

I know he chose Leicester, I know why he chose Leicester and I know he was responding to a question. I can also see why people, myself included have had a chuckle over it.

JFDI (U1657)

That is not a flaw.

That is a criticism.

It is not a flaw because he has simply removed a statistical outlier, which is a proven practice of analysis.

You might feel that in doing so, his point can be criticised.

Fine.

But the actual act of doing what he has done, and saying what he has said, is not flawed.

I truly believe you do not understand what a flaw is.

I also am now convinced that you will never, ever admit you're wrong, which is a flaw in your personality.