Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/14/08 09:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

That comes to a total of 5100 people, or 5.67% of the North Americans in Beijing.

LOL

Pssshhhh. This was back of the friggin' envelope man. Considering your ENTIRE argument is based on the idea that it's nigh-impossible that this person was killed at random, shouldn't you be able to come up with some numbers yourself?

Lol I did.

The ones I mentioned were fairly reasonable.

Um, no they weren't, they were based entirely on your assumptions that you didn't back up with facts.

When I showed a comparison of US athletes, I actually provided the actual number of Americans compared to other western, predominately white countries.

What you just did was take the amount of tourists in Beijing... and then fabricate an entire scenario and entire other set of numbers by which came to a conclusion and created a statistical analysis on. You came to such specific numbers with absolutely ZERO factual basis for them, you just assumed it all right off the top of your head.

Let's recap here:

You only provided evidence for one number... 450,000 for the number of tourists expected in Beijing.

Every number you used from then on was completely made up by you:

- 20% of them being from North America (MADE UP)
- Thusly 90,000 being from North America (BASED ON SOMETHING THAT IS MADE UP)
- .5 coaches per US athlete (MADE UP)
- 1 staff member per US athlete (MADE UP)
- 5100 total people, (BASED ON PREVIOUS CONJECTURE)
- Thusly 5.67% of North Americans supposedly in Beijing (BASED ON NUMBERS THAT YOU MADE UP)

All of this is completely baseless. Don't you grasp how hilarious this is? You always criticize the hell out of any argument you don't like. Whenever someone provides numbers, you scrutinize the hell out of them using enormous stretches of logic to do so. Then you have the audacity to suggest that your little statistical analysis there has any weight to it? Most of the numbers you used, you made up off the top of your head!

Man, Elfer, it doesn't get much more pathetic than that. For someone like you who has gone to great lengths to pretend like you're some stickler for numbers and the scientific method, you sure as hell have never, ever, ever provided a single argument that even comes close to meeting that criteria. How would you have treated an argument from someone else if they did what you did and came to their conclusion using numbers that they simply pulled out of thin air and then claimed confidently that they were a "reasonable estimate"... like you do now?

Your evidence shows it's plausible that someone can track someone else down via their blog, but you didn't show that it's plausible in this case, especially considering the person would have had to find and kill someone at a large tourist site.

I also gave a reasonable estimate

Epic.

that there's a statistically significant chance of a team-relation being randomly selected from the pool of North American tourists.

"Statistical significant" based entirely on numbers that exist only in your head?

Either way, the US is going to win the final medal tally anyway

Possibly. Possibly not.

At 8/14/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: When I showed a comparison of US athletes, I actually provided the actual number of Americans compared to other western, predominately white countries.

Which is an irrelevant number, since people can tell the difference between English and Italian, much like how English speakers can distinguish between Chinese and Japanese.

What you just did was take the amount of tourists in Beijing... and then fabricate an entire scenario and entire other set of numbers by which came to a conclusion and created a statistical analysis on. You came to such specific numbers with absolutely ZERO factual basis for them, you just assumed it all right off the top of your head.

And? You're the one making the assertion that it's next to impossible for someone to be killed in a crowd of that size. I at least fucking ballparked some numbers for you, all you've done is repeatedly asserted that the chance is negligible without even an estimate to back it up.

Man, Elfer, it doesn't get much more pathetic than that. For someone like you who has gone to great lengths to pretend like you're some stickler for numbers and the scientific method, you sure as hell have never, ever, ever provided a single argument that even comes close to meeting that criteria.

That's because I'm not the one claiming the existence of a vast conspiracy. My position is that there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION. Now you're criticizing that argument by saying that I didn't provide evidence for the number of Americans in Beijing, when your entire argument rests on those numbers, yet you haven't provided any evidence yourself?

If you think any of the numbers that I estimated are unreasonable, be specific. If you think you can do a better job of proving your case, go right the fuck ahead. You're the conspiracy theorist here, not me.

The burden of proof lies on CellarDoor to show that there are no viable alternative hypothesis, because he's the one making the positive claim.

At 8/14/08 10:17 PM, Al6200 wrote: The burden of proof lies on CellarDoor to show that there are no viable alternative hypothesis, because he's the one making the positive claim.

Not necessarily, he just has to show that other proposed reasonable hypotheses are false. That's really hard to do though, because weird fluke shit happens all the time.

ANYWAY, since we're obviously never going to agree on which one of us is supposed to go get those numbers, I suggest we adjourn the conversation and you, cellar, take your case to US authorities and tell them about it.

At 8/14/08 09:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/14/08 09:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: When I showed a comparison of US athletes, I actually provided the actual number of Americans compared to other western, predominately white countries.

Which is an irrelevant number, since people can tell the difference between English and Italian

Except... Americans aren't confined to a single race or appearance. And in that case, I bet there are a whole lot of Italians that wouldn't be distinguishable by appearance from a British person, and vice versa, and with regards to other western countries.

much like how English speakers can distinguish between Chinese and Japanese.

That would be a crap shoot for the average English speaker.

What you just did was take the amount of tourists in Beijing... and then fabricate an entire scenario and entire other set of numbers by which came to a conclusion and created a statistical analysis on. You came to such specific numbers with absolutely ZERO factual basis for them, you just assumed it all right off the top of your head.

And?

That's it. You yourself made a positive claim, that it wouldn't be statistically improbable for an American related to the US Olympic team to be killed. Your argument in that regard was based on statistics you fabricated... then you suggested they were reasonable estimates.

You're the one making the assertion that it's next to impossible for someone to be killed in a crowd of that size.

No, I said it was statistically improbable, and it is, even according to your wacky analysis.

I at least fucking ballparked some numbers for you

No, you made up complete bullshit.

all you've done is repeatedly asserted that the chance is negligible without even an estimate to back it up.

Lol, it's funny not only did I actually provide actual numbers to base my claim that it was improbable for the guy to get killed, but now you're pretending that your FABRICATION would be better than just an assertion.

What you did was make up numbers. What I did was use actual numbers. And yet you feel like you contributed something more substantial. Lol.

Man, Elfer, it doesn't get much more pathetic than that. For someone like you who has gone to great lengths to pretend like you're some stickler for numbers and the scientific method, you sure as hell have never, ever, ever provided a single argument that even comes close to meeting that criteria.

That's because I'm not the one claiming the existence of a vast conspiracy.

Yet you were the one who used several positive claims, and made up bullshit to validate them, in order to claim that the vast conspiracy was not likely.

My position is that there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION.

No, that's not your position at all. Your position is one that you make up a whole bunch of nonsense as "EVIDENCE" to suggest that there WASN'T a conspiracy, because it was likely that first, the guy was just crazy looking for white people to kill, or that the guy was looking for a American/North American to kill, or that the guy actually specifically stalked and assassinated the person without any assistance from someone higher up.

You didn't just say that there's insufficient evidence. You've been arguing this whole time trying to provide evidence that YOUR theory about what happened is true.

Now you're criticizing that argument by saying that I didn't provide evidence for the number of Americans in Beijing, when your entire argument rests on those numbers, yet you haven't provided any evidence yourself?

Now you're just lying straight out of your ass.

First off, I did provide actual evidence and an actual statistical analysis, as crude as it was, based on real numbers . It was YOU who made claims that I asked you to provide evidence for to counter thate statistical analysis. It was YOU who then made the numbers up, with no facts to support your assertions. And yet you pretend like you actually provided evidence? Lol.

Here's a little example to show you how hilarious your argument is.

You have roughly 12,000 posts, and it is reasonable to assume that 90% of them consist of crappy arguments, lies, and hypocrisy. So we're working from a base of 10,800 posts. Now, it's a "reasonable estimate" that each one contains .5 crappy statistics and 1 examples of hypocrisy. This means that you've made 5400 arguments based on crappy statistics, and you've have 10,800 instances of being a hypocrite. Now, since you've had around 12 posts in this thread, that suggests you've made 6 crappy arguments based on crappy statistics, and have been hypocritical 12 times.

Now at least I provided evidence right? Because the first number I gave you was backed up by a link, that must mean the rest is credible right? That's how you argue isn't it?

If you think any of the numbers that I estimated are unreasonable, be specific.

If you think any of the numbers you provided were reasonable, specifically prove that they are. Now, you made a positive claim now didn't you? So don't tell me to be specific and identify which thing you said as being inaccurate, thus shifting your burden of proof to me as if I have to disprove your claims otherwise they are automatically correct. If you make a claim, prove it. You can't say "it's true unless you prove it wrong", that's called an argument from ignorance.

At 8/14/08 10:28 PM, Elfer wrote: Not necessarily, he just has to show that other proposed reasonable hypotheses are false.

If that's how things work, then you have to prove that the "evidence" that I "provided" about the likelihood of your arguments containing crappy statistics and hypocrisy are wrong, otherwise they have to be assumed to be true.

At 8/14/08 10:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now, since you've had around 12 posts in this thread, that suggests you've made 6 crappy arguments based on crappy statistics, and have been hypocritical 12 times.

Make that 5.4 crappy statistics arguments and 10.8 instances of hypocrisy.

But you get the point either way I'm sure.

At 8/14/08 10:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, that's not your position at all. Your position is one that you make up a whole bunch of nonsense as "EVIDENCE" to suggest that there WASN'T a conspiracy

Hey, let's talk when you're ready to argue against my actual position, huh? I've said numerous times that I'm not claiming that there's evidence to preclude government involvement. Until you're ready to stop misrepresenting my argument, we won't be able to have an actual discussion.

You have roughly 12,000 posts, and it is reasonable to assume that 90% of them consist of crappy arguments, lies, and hypocrisy.

Here's an example of where I can show this estimate to be unreasonable: Over 10% of my posts are outside the politics forum. The ones outside of the politics forum contain misdirection and non-sequiturs rather than lies and hypocrisy.

Dear lord, I didn't think you were THAT dumb, cellar :O
I actually was starting to like you, and then you do this? Damn.

You are a conspiracy nut, plain and simple. Everyone is against america. There's always an underlying motive for everyone to be against you and america, and it's always because they're "liars" and "hypocrites" and "ignorant" and YOU know the REEEEEAL truth.

I mean come on.

Could Al Qaeda have succeeded in the 9/11 attacks without the assistance of the US government? Absolutely not.

At 8/14/08 10:28 PM, Elfer wrote:

Not necessarily, he just has to show that other proposed reasonable hypotheses are false. That's really hard to do though, because weird fluke shit happens all the time.

ANYWAY, since we're obviously never going to agree on which one of us is supposed to go get those numbers, I suggest we adjourn the conversation and you, cellar, take your case to US authorities and tell them about it.

Fair enough, let's run down our alternatives to (Chinese government did it):

1. An extremely nationalistic and patriotic Chinese person did it without any help from the government.

2. A Chinese person who was angry with the government wanted to kill a relative of a US Olympian and make it look like the Chinese government organized it. He intentionally choose a US olympian's relative because he felt that impacting US public perception of China was an important goal. He felt that the security was too tight around the Olympians themselves so he went after a relative.

3. A sociopath decided that he wanted to kill anyone and get attention. He went after someone from the US because he felt that it would get more media coverage.

Ultimately, the only way to show that 1 and 2 are false would be to show that killing a relative of a US coach would require inside knowledge. You showed pretty definitively that through the internet one could determine what US citizens were in China, and that knife could probably be brought pretty close to a US Olympian.

At 8/14/08 10:50 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/14/08 10:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, that's not your position at all. Your position is one that you make up a whole bunch of nonsense as "EVIDENCE" to suggest that there WASN'T a conspiracy

Hey, let's talk when you're ready to argue against my actual position, huh?

Let's talk when you're ready to 1) Actually take a solid position and 2) Support your positive claims with facts instead of conjecture that you pull directly from your ass.

At 8/14/08 11:07 PM, poxpower wrote: Dear lord, I didn't think you were THAT dumb, cellar :O

Pox, I have more intelligence in my right testicle than you have in your entire being.

And my left one is slightly bigger than my right one. So that's saying something.

I actually was starting to like you, and then you do this? Damn.

Ah! I'm so hurt and stuff. You really hit me in my soft spot... your opinion of me.

You are a conspiracy nut, plain and simple.

You are an eternally narrow-minded, intellectually-crippled mental midget, plain and simple.

At 8/15/08 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Let's talk when you're ready to 1) Actually take a solid position and 2) Support your positive claims with facts instead of conjecture that you pull directly from your ass.

AAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaah!!!

Well if that ain't the pot callin the kettle the n-word... You accuse ELFER of ass-pulled conjecture!? Oh that's rich.

Just when I thought you couldn't get more full of yourself. Elfer's multitude of realistic (and not-so-realistic) theories are conjecture pulled out of his ass, but a Chinese government conspiracy to kill the relative of a coach isn't?

MY. GOD.

You have just made my night. And it's been a shitty one... so thank you.

You are an eternally narrow-minded, intellectually-crippled mental midget, plain and simple.

Will you two just fuck and get it over with... this middle-school sexual tension is killing me.

cue "you're just angry cuz I proved you wrong about blah blah blah..." in 3....2.....1.....

good ol fashioned american karma

Cellardoor, are there any politics regulars you actually like?

Last I heard, it wasn't an athlete that got whacked. Let's factor in every single white tourist in China.

At 8/15/08 05:47 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 8/15/08 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Let's talk when you're ready to 1) Actually take a solid position and 2) Support your positive claims with facts instead of conjecture that you pull directly from your ass.

AAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaah!!!

Here comes the troll.

Well if that ain't the pot callin the kettle the n-word

Except not.

... You accuse ELFER of ass-pulled conjecture!? Oh that's rich.

Because it's true.

Just when I thought you couldn't get more full of yourself.

Just when I thought you couldn't be anymore of psychotically obsessed troll.

Elfer's multitude of realistic (and not-so-realistic) theories are conjecture pulled out of his ass, but a Chinese government conspiracy to kill the relative of a coach isn't?

The difference is, I never claimed that my theory was fact. I never used my scenario in and of itself as being a fact. Elfer did however make very specific claims, he spewed out very specific numbers, almost all of which were complete assumptions, but he pretended they were realistic.

The numbers I did provide that I did actually say were proof, actually were real. I didn't just do what Elfer did and pull random numbers out of thin air and claim they were accurate. But nice try, troll.

cue "you're just angry cuz I proved you wrong about blah blah blah..." in 3....2.....1.....

And you know it's true.

Ravariel, you're a disgruntled, angry, very sad NG poster who just jumped into a thread for revenge because you've been proved wrong, humiliated, and shown to be entirely ignorant and uneducated on several occasions by yours truly. Just recently your VAST IGNORANCE was paraded for all to see, your psychotic episode in here is your attempt at revenge and you know it. You came in here, neglected the topic entirely, and devoted a trolling post to me. And you actually pretend that suggesting you are angry because I proved you wrong is not true? Should I start avoiding this fact just to diversy what I say, even though by doing so I'd be missing the obvious truth here? You have issues.

Now proceed to fill stalk me from thread to thread, replying to every post I make with insults like you used to do. I know it's all you have to feel better about yourself.

At 8/15/08 06:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Cellardoor, are there any politics regulars you actually like?

Hmmm, Elfer actually can be tolerable in rare occasions. Even Pox can be tolerable when he's not actually talking about politics and doesn't actually believe he knows what he's talking about. But do I "like" them...? That's an interesting word to use to to explain someone who you can only gauge via text, don't you think? I will say this though, the person I dislike the least is probably lapis or Chistopherr though I rarely see them post anymore.

All Elfer said is that he wouldn't condemn the Chinese government in this matter.

As in, if this were a trial, China would DEFINITELY be found NOT GUILTY.

It seems to me that you're dead-set on convincing him that it's POSSIBLE that the government had something to do with it, but he knows that very well already :o

At 8/15/08 07:03 AM, poxpower wrote: All Elfer said is that he wouldn't condemn the Chinese government in this matter.

No.

What he did in this argument is make stuff up off the top of his head to lend credibility to his points. I never criticized his belief that it's likely that the Chinese government wasn't involved. I criticized the way he went about validating that belief, such as saying:

At 8/13/08 09:58 AM, Elfer wrote: 450,000 tourists expected in Beijing for the olympics. Let's say a substantial chunk of those, say, 20% are from North America. That's 90,000 potential targets.

There's about 600 US athletes. Let's say that there's roughly 0.5 coaches per athlete (gymnasts have a lot, rowers have less, etc), and about 1 support staff per athlete. Let's also assume that each athlete and coach brings along roughly four people (parents and significant other/friends/other important relatives. Considering we're talking about in-laws being killed here, NOT UNREASONABLE).

That comes to a total of 5100 people, or 5.67% of the North Americans in Beijing. Likely? Not really, but certainly not beyond the realm of reasonable possibility.

------------

The only thing he said there that was factual was that there was to be an estimated 450,000 tourists in Beijing. All the other figures were entirely fabricated. THAT is what I was criticizing. THAT is conjecture, because his conclusion he came to, such a specific number, was based entirely meaningless numbers he pulled out of oblivion.

I wasn't pretending he or anyone else was stupid or was using conjecture simply for suggesting that the Chinese government wasn't involved.

At 8/15/08 07:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The only thing he said there that was factual was that there was to be an estimated 450,000 tourists in Beijing.

Oh, and I guess the part where he said there was about 600 US athletes is true as well. The rest was complete conjecture.

At 8/15/08 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/14/08 10:50 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/14/08 10:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, that's not your position at all. Your position is one that you make up a whole bunch of nonsense as "EVIDENCE" to suggest that there WASN'T a conspiracy

Hey, let's talk when you're ready to argue against my actual position, huh?

Let's talk when you're ready to 1) Actually take a solid position

Why should I take a solid position when there's not enough evidence to do so? That's completely ridiculous. It's like when people tell me I "have to make a decision" as to whether or not God exists.

I've got no basis for making a solid claim about what happened, so I'm not going to.

On the subject of the numbers: You still haven't provided any reason that those would be considered unreasonable estimates for those values. The estimate of 20% was loosely based on the populations of participating nations (after cutting down world population by a bunch and doubling the proportion from North America to cover for economic differences). The values for coaches and support staff was from watching the olympics. Some athletes have more than one coach, some have less than one, teams usually have around half a coach per player.

Same with family members. They nearly always show that the athlete brings their parents, and significant other if they have one. There's often an extra relative or friend as well, and some athletes have more than that.

The estimates of "people connected per athlete" were covered by leaving out people like alternates and former olympic athletes.

If you've got some specific reason that you think one of those values is an over/under estimate, please share.

At 8/15/08 05:53 AM, ImlunchBoxx wrote: good ol fashioned american karma

"Old fashioned American karma" is a pretty good phrase.

Even if CellarDoor could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the plan was a deliberate attack on someone tied closely to the US team - that wouldn't show that the Chinese government was involved.

Their red uniforms are also supposed to be lucky.
Here's why.
lol

So this means we kick ass under negative conditions? AWESOME!

Britain's won 10 gold medals already :O

Michael Phelps will probably beat Mark Spitz record, which means that he will boost his tally to 8 medals.

08/08/08, 08:08 PM, 8 medals

Coincidence? I think not.

Woo! We're coming back up in the world. Go Team GB! Beat those damn Aussies!

At 8/17/08 01:50 PM, ThePretenders wrote: Michael Phelps will probably beat Mark Spitz record, which means that he will boost his tally to 8 medals.

08/08/08, 08:08 PM, 8 medals

Coincidence? I think not.

i feel sry for him he has gone threw more drugs test in the past week then any winehouse has ever gone

Relevant.

If medals represented political power, Micheal Phelps would be the fucking president.

Brief check, should the UK be celebrating being the highest-placed non-superpower in the medals table?

And fuck Phelps, Usain Bolt should be Supreme Overlord of the Earth.