I agree that most of what passes for reason with you constitutes a pile.
lain:
You mean your own pile continues to be mistaken by you for the rule. Again, there's a way to establish rules and confusing a couple of burning fields with an agricultural certainty isn't that. :nono:
THall thinks that if he has a handful or a hundred examples of a thing he has a rule, even against the sort of numbers you note. THall is wrong, as usual and absent a better model rooted in verifiable data to establish his point.
Most of them?
And while I spent a great deal of time with and around them and while one of my best and oldest friends is a policeman the difference between our exposures is statistically negligible when approaching the issue of establishing a rule on the matter as an objective proposition. Which is to say neither of our anecdotal experiences is remotely sufficient to establish more than our individual biases.
If true (and I have no reason not to suspect your impression, memory or honesty) it would still at best signify that your limited area of exposure has a seriously large minority of officers in need of another occupation.
I think that even were that true you'd still have the same problem I noted prior.
No, I'm simply well educated, indicated by my understanding of how one goes about establishing a statistical rule. Your lack of understanding that establishes at least one anecdotal that were I you would parlay into a profound national ignorance.
lain:Most of them?
And while I spent a great deal of time with and around them and while one of my best and oldest friends is a policeman the difference between our exposures is statistically negligible when approaching the issue of establishing a rule on the matter as an objective proposition. Which is to say neither of our anecdotal experiences is remotely sufficient to establish more than our individual biases.
If true (and I have no reason not to suspect your impression, memory or honesty) it would still at best signify that your limited area of exposure has a seriously large minority of officers in need of another occupation.
I think that even were that true you'd still have the same problem I noted prior.
No, I'm simply well educated, indicated by my understanding of how one goes about establishing a statistical rule. Your lack of understanding that establishes at least one anecdotal that were I you would parlay into a profound national ignorance.
I understand you haven't much else left to do, being called on factual and methodological deficiency. I'm mostly surprised that your posts don't consist in their entirety of epithets.
To the contrary, I can't deny your overwhelming inability to argue the point, rooted no doubt in your apparent ignorance of the means by which you could attempt it.
Evidence matters most of all. But you're confusing a variety of anecdotes with something they simply don't add up to. That's not how it's done.
We also live in a society where countless individuals are tasked and/or task themselves as public watchdogs and where litigation isn't exactly a last resort in the collective mindset.
I think that's human nature, but it doesn't really sustain the charges being thrown out as representative by THgall, now does it.
| cop slaps man for refusing search | |