Paintball

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by drg

I had a feeling you'd try to make issue of my wording there. I won't let you get away with it. By question, I of course mean ... SIGNIFICANT question. There are real problems with the conclusions you draw because the data do not really support them. Anecdotal information tells us it probably is correct, but your data is not really useful for proving beyond a reasonable (scientific) doubt what you are saying.

well IMO it is.

that is why i look forward to different tests and dont really feel the need to do anything further with this one, becuase i am convinced. i have found the answer i was looking for, which acutally disagreed with what i thought at the beginning.

it seems to work on some level, but nothing i could ever use in a game.

i mean "reasonable doubt" is a dumb phrase. in the shocker test a kid demanded we re-do the the test becuase things were not aligned to ".0001 inches."

needless to say we did not fulfill his "reasonable doubt."

so who's reasonable doubt do we use? that agent guy here would not accept the same thing you would?

a small amount of science can go a VERY long way.

[drg]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

well IMO it is.

that is why i look forward to different tests and dont really feel the need to do anything further with this one, becuase i am convinced. i have found the answer i was looking for, which acutally disagreed with what i thought at the beginning.

it seems to work on some level, but nothing i could ever use in a game.

i mean "reasonable doubt" is a dumb phrase. in the shocker test a kid demanded we re-do the the test becuase things were not aligned to ".0001 inches."

needless to say we did not fulfill his "reasonable doubt."

so who's reasonable doubt do we use? that agent guy here would not accept the same thing you would?

a small amount of science can go a VERY long way.

You can keep parsing my posts for semantics if you like but we both know what I mean. You're not fooling me and I'm pretty sure you're not fooling most other participants in this thread.

Anyway at this point I'm just repeating myself and in the absence of more testing or a re-analysis, my position on your analysis won't change. It's sloppy and self-fulfilling at best.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by drg

You can keep parsing my posts for semantics if you like but we both know what I mean. You're not fooling me and I'm pretty sure you're not fooling most other participants in this thread.

Anyway at this point I'm just repeating myself and in the absence of more testing or a re-analysis, my position on your analysis won't change. It's sloppy and self-fulfilling at best.

well, agree to disagree.

it seems drg, you like to play both sides of everything. on one hand you say i am "probably right" and on the other you say i am "sloppy and self-fufilling"

see you next myth drg.