The question of SMOKING and CAUSATION

It's really amazing how a thread that started by Meatball on his
quitting of smoking -- turned into a tree-hugging crusade by Greg
Mossman, who has absolutely no knowledge about how CAUSATION can
be ascertained statistically, exhibited his gullable in any and all
anti-smoking propaganda.

Greg was glad to change the subject to LAW (which he thought he knew
something about) when he was alone on a limb on smoking, without any
leg to stand on, and was rudely awaken that he didn't even know the
most basic facts about LAW -- the court standards!

Once he hastily took the bet that he was correct in his earlier
(May 27, 2004) argument, that "beyond a reasonable doubt" was NOT
as high a standard as the lesser standard of "clear, convincing, and
unequivocal" evidence, he IMMEDIATELY lost the $1,000 bet he accepted,
and started weaseling his way ever since.

Greg made a SECOND blunder, by falsely claiming there are "three
and only THREE" standards, while it was clearly established in a
referenced paper on FOUR standards and data on 10 judges on those
FOUR standards.

Then Greg went on a tangent to bet on his verifiable record of an
IQ test score, when he has NONE to show! He had been polluting
(pun very much intended) that smoking thread by playing KING Weasel
ever since.

I am damned tired of Greg's weaseling acts, and am ready to get
BACK to the "causation" issue about smoking.


We have a lawyer who knows NOTHING about statistics arguing about
causal inference in statistics, claiming that a controlled experiment
is NOT necessary. Correlation and common sense would suffice, says
Greg.

Little did Greg know that his argument had already been shot down by
me, OVER 30 years ago, in a 1972 publication:

RF> For a serious discussion of this aspect, you may read what I've
RF> published in a 1972 issue of the Journal of the American
Association,
RF> the review of a book titled "Correlation and Causation", in which
RF> the author presented his case that "correlation" studies (such as
RF> your figures on rates and associations) can establish/prove
RF> causation. I gave my statistical argument why, in the absence of
RF> a controlled experiment, such a conclusion is unwarranted, and
RF> the correlation methodology presented in the book was just "black
RF> magic" (I used those words). Don't recall if I actually used the
RF> word "quack" or not.

RF> That's about it. Every other week you read some news item like
RF> "Study links escargo eating to faster running", or some such, and
RF> the only thing it says is that someone got some grant from the
RF> government, and found some spurious association and called those
RF> "links".

The pool is open.

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106287116.204164.253460@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

> Once he hastily took the bet that he was correct in his earlier
> (May 27, 2004) argument, that "beyond a reasonable doubt" was NOT
> as high a standard as the lesser standard of "clear, convincing, and
> unequivocal" evidence, he IMMEDIATELY lost the $1,000 bet he accepted,
> and started weaseling his way ever since.

Pure delusions, unsupported by anything in the archives.

> Greg made a SECOND blunder, by falsely claiming there are "three
> and only THREE" standards, while it was clearly established in a
> referenced paper on FOUR standards and data on 10 judges on those
> FOUR standards.

Your faulty memory of a paper by a statistics professor, versus my verbatim
quote of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, the highest law of the land.
There's absolutely no contest. Your failure to pay the $1,000 you lost
makes you a welsher of the highest degree. You are scum, not even pond scum
but cesspool scum, fetid, rank, foul.

> I am damned tired of Greg's weaseling acts, and am ready to get
> BACK to the "causation" issue about smoking.

Why don't we get back to the subject of our IQ tests? If I find my verified
score, I will sue you for $18,000. Let's see you weasel out of that.

To avoid the hassle, I'm offering one last break. Not only will I pay my
costs of travel and the costs of the examination, give you a ride to and
from the test site, and buy you a sandwich for lunch, so you have absolutely
not one single iota of an excuse to get out of taking the test, but I will
generously reduce the ridiculous amount of $1,000 a point over your score
that you offered me to a more reasonable $100 a point. After all, we know
you're not good for it anyway, I hate to see the elderly reduced to hawking
their Rolexes to buy cat food, and it's not really your fault that your
arthritic foot is too slow to block your mouth in time to prevent you from
committing yourself to some really stupid actions since it's obviously the
result of uncontrollable mental deterioration. $1,800 will be enough to
reimburse my airfare and hotel and exam costs. My reward will be your utter
humiliation.

In article <1106287116.204164.253460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:


€
€ Greg made a SECOND blunder, by falsely claiming there are "three
€ and only THREE" standards, while it was clearly established in a
€ referenced paper on FOUR standards and data on 10 judges on those
€ FOUR standards.
€

A paper is merely an opinion that is not disagreed with by the peer
review committee of a particular journal, which depending on the
journal could range from essentially nothing to the Editor in Chief and
two or three editors. A paper which is later referenced means there are
others who use some part of that work to support their own work.

A supreme court decision, on the other hand, is the absolute rule of
law in this country. You could cite 10,000 papers defending your
position, and they're all trumped by one supreme court decision stating
the opposite.

Your fundamental inability to understand this fact explains why you
devoted your life to statistics instead of law.

€ Then Greg went on a tangent to bet on his verifiable record of an
€ IQ test score, when he has NONE to show! He had been polluting
€ (pun very much intended) that smoking thread by playing KING Weasel
€ ever since.
€
€ I am damned tired of Greg's weaseling acts,

The several new posts, and several thousand words you've posted over
the last three days would suggest otherwise.

Alan Street wrote:
> In article <1106287116.204164.253460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,
> Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> €
> € Greg made a SECOND blunder, by falsely claiming there are "three
> € and only THREE" standards, while it was clearly established in a
> € referenced paper on FOUR standards and data on 10 judges on those
> € FOUR standards.
> €
>
> A supreme court decision, on the other hand, is the absolute rule of
> law in this country.

Read "LAW for DUMMIES (including Greg)" to see how the Supreme Court,
based on the passages Greg cited, supported the FOUR standards
cited in the paper.

-- Bob.

P.S. I am going to enjoy some sightseeing activities now, while you
and other dummies (Greg, chilly, Lee, etc.) play in their new sandboxes
that are created everyday (in an attempt to hide Greg's blunders).

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106318549.580511.29330@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...

> Read "LAW for DUMMIES (including Greg)" to see how the Supreme Court,
> based on the passages Greg cited, supported the FOUR standards
> cited in the paper.

Once again, I'll ask you, since you fail to understand the
less-than-clear-to-someone-with-ESL language of the Supreme Court, would you
accept a law school textbook written by Erwin Chemerinsky? I'll mail you
and Alan photocopies. But I'm not going to bother if you're still going to
blatantly disregard what is placed right in front of your face.

So is it okay or not to light up at depths of eighty feet?

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106318549.580511.29330@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>>Read "LAW for DUMMIES (including Greg)" to see how the Supreme Court,
>>based on the passages Greg cited, supported the FOUR standards
>>cited in the paper.
>
>
> Once again, I'll ask you, since you fail to understand the
> less-than-clear-to-someone-with-ESL language of the Supreme Court, would you
> accept a law school textbook written by Erwin Chemerinsky? I'll mail you
> and Alan photocopies. But I'm not going to bother if you're still going to
> blatantly disregard what is placed right in front of your face.
>
>

"Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IOdId.48613$Ta2.41199@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> So is it okay or not to light up at depths of eighty feet?

Yes, of course it's okay or not.