Hey weren't you the one who bet on Romney in '12? :D I think I have some forum archives here...
Anyways, the goal here is (for those who haven't caught on yet) is to develop a crowd sourced probability (ideally with margin of error) using money as a motivating factor. Given the significant impact that eCat would have on portfolios, that probability is a pretty functional statistic. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com>wrote: > Jed: > > If you keep going on like this, I'll never be able to take this guy's > money ;-] > > Maybe you could rag on the fish after the money is off the table? > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> blaze spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent >>> investigators . . . >>> >> >> You have no basis for believing this. There is nothing in their report >> that might indicate it. They took every reasonable precaution, such as >> setting up a video camera and recording the entire test. >> >> >> >>> and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, >>> >> >> No plausible method of doing this has been suggested by any skeptic. If >> the skeptics could think of a way to rig the test, they would have >> published it by now. Or do you buy the "cheese" hypothesis, that people >> cannot see ordinary wires? >> >> >> >>> less likely, they made optimistic measurements. >>> >> >> You can see for yourself that in every instance their measurements are >> conservative -- or pessimistic. In every case where they might have >> underestimated output, they did so. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
