Kevin, let me fill you in on a secret of making high precision ASSesments. If you are going to pull figures from your ass, you can make them as many decimal places as you like limited by a factor or 3 things.
#1 How unchecked you have let your ego grow. #2 How Cheek-y you are. #3 How big an ass you are (or have). I happen to be wearing socks today with 'Cheeky' written on them (part of a set with Awesome, Happy, Angry etc...). So I could go a whole extra decimal place today if I wanted. Before you know it you will be going to 5 significant figures with just a little practass! On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:51 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Kevin, I think you failed to account for CME and sunspot activity being > very low. > > Elevated sunspot activity is related to aberrant behavior. > This will reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down another > 0.013% down to 7.077% > ***Well, that's a good point. In addition, there is the spot market > price of Preparation H. However, I notice that you're using four > significant figures and I'm using three. Your 7.077% would get rounded up > and make it 7.08% in my dataset. My data isn't accurate enough to go down > as far as you have. Do you have a better data collection scheme? If so, > please let us all know. > > So with your input about sunspots & CMEs, and the Preparation H thing, I > am constrained to reduce the odds of a sudden reASSesment by Blaze down to > 7.06%. We appear to be very close in our analysis. However, there is > little doubt that blaze would take the difference and see it as a reason to > downgrade Rossi-Being-Real another 10%. >
