• Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12075 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > we'd know the Cherrypad 2 had at least been released, so who cares if you
    > misidentified the article as a review.

    I guess the readers of the article who take that article for a review would care, especially as the article contains statements that make it sound like a genuine review.

    > I'm *not* saying A) and B) *caused* the mistake. If I wanted to say that, I would have
    > said "because." I *am* saying A) and B) absence makes it substantial.

    You mean A) and B) absence *causes* it being substantial?

    > I classed the release of photos and supposed specs of an unmarked and
    > (presumably) Chinese unit, as a "tenuous connection."

    ...and you classed Cherrypal identifying the device as a "tenuous connection" in #165.

    >> In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale
    >> device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?

    > pictures of a branded unit, an online video showing Max Seybold playing with it,
    > pictures of the unit being unwrapped from a Cherrypal box, a picture of the
    > device booting a Cherrypal logo with the screen showing

    Thanks for addressing another one of my questions.

    > this dispute also perhaps involved the basic statistical misunderstanding
    > that a correlation of factors (or conditions) equals causation.

    No, at least not from my side.

    > I don't know if you've learned statistics.

    I consider your example more like a matter of common sense (or basic set theory) than of statistics ;-)

    > I do not intend [...] to address your other assertion that my silence on the article
    > paragraph you cited means that I conclude the author pulled it from thin air.

    You seem to miss that you already addressed this assertion by saying in #173 that I was wrong. Hence my question to you in #174, #176 and #194:
    If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say? Would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?
    And the other ones which are still unaddressed:
    Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?
    Could you please rephrase the one statement from #199 which I said I failed to get the meaning of in #200?

    > I've found when I answer two of your questions it leads to another five

    Could you point me to those alleged 5 new questions that arose from you answering two of my older questions (as opposed to from dubious statements like this one)?
  • »08.09.11 - 16:01
    Profile