Lee Bell lectures on Statistics and Mathematics

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<85TSc.14577$nx2.12836@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net>...

felt compelled to add his POLLUTION to the "DCI and PFO ... again"
thread,

RF> While my post is about PFO which means something to a diver,
RF> an average one or not, its substance is about CONDITIONAL
RF> PROBABILITIES snd the use of Bayes Theorem in sorting out
RF> different conditional probabilities.
>
> I saw no statistics. Did somebody actually post some statistically
> derrived information?

Why should that surprise anyone? For someone who doesn't even
know that a statistical median or mode is NOT a statistical mean,
you would have served everyone well by staying out of that
statistical thread.



The meanings of those terms were known in the 17th century, in every
first course in statistics, and should have been settled in 2000 when
I corrected Professor Vince Brannigan the same ERROR Lee was making
in 2002, when Lee used it on Jim Greenlee when Jim corrected him:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A132E09



Below was what I had said about Lee, in 2002, on the same blunders
he is still making today!

RF> Lee> I'm sure there is a newsgroup somewhere that specializes in
RF> Lee> in statistics, one where somebody cares what the PROPER
RF> Lee> usage of terms in statistics is. I'm reasonably sure that
RF> Lee> this newsgroup is not such a place.

< Lee first placed himself as spokesman of rec.scuba about
nobody there cares about statistics >

RF> Of course not, because Lee Bell made the same ERRORS as those
RF> cited, in Statistics and English!

< By English, I was referring to the same Brannigan error Lee
made, of confusing the statistical NOUN "average", with the
common use of the word "average" as an ADJECTIVE. >

RF> How dare anyone correct Lee Bell about his errors and
RF> blunders in any newsgroup? But it's perfectly appropriate
RF> for Lee to dispense his MISINFORMATION in this very same
RF> newsgroup about the same subject.

That has become a Lee Bell trademark over the years, on his IGNORANCE
on matters of mathematics, statistics, physics, and science.


On the present PFO thread,

> But even the LEAST equipped reader, scientifically and statistically
> speaking (Lee Bell, e.g., who has repeatedly proven his ignorance in
> statistical and mathematical subjects) can always be counted to drop
> in to put in a dig or two, on his complete ignorance.
>
Lee> Yep, that's me. Three yeard of engineering, Two years of
Lee> computer science and, surprise of surpises, a business degree
Lee> that included several different statistics courses

That's pretty sad commentary about the quality of the educational
system in Florida and the rest of the USA, isn't it? "Several
different statistics courses" and STILL doesn't know what a median
and a mode is?


Lee > and, in my case, included calculus and differential equations.

And argued for WEEKS because Lee didn't even know what a LINEAR
function is, and insisted that Volume is a LINEAR function of
Pressure in Boyle's Law.


After many rounds of Mouth Dancing <Lee's tm> and obfuscation
<another Lee's tm>, Lee FINALLY learned what a LINEAR function is,
in scuba-L, but felt compelled to stick ANOTHER foot in his mouth:

Lee> Your response to me went beyond the initial error to state
Lee> "The nonlinear relation does NOT have a slope, as a straight
Lee> line has a slope".

Lee> The fact that a straight line has a slope does not mean that
Lee> a curved line does not, as I'm sure you know.

I didn't know THAT!

I only had completed the course work for a Ph.D. in mathematics,
before completing my course work and Ph.D. degree in statistics,
how could I possibly have the deep understanding of those
subjects lectured by Lee Bell in rec.scuba?


Lee> In your profession, you surely have extensive knowledge of
Calculus.

A little. See my paragraph above.



Lee> Don't hold me to the terms or spelling, but as I recall, the
Lee> first derivitive of a function is the slope at a given point

Your misspelling of "derivative" is the least of your ERRORS, but it
is symptomatic of your IGNORANCE of the subject of calculus though.

Could it be possible that Lee (DING DONG) Bell made yet another
blunder by calling it "the slope at a given point" of a curve,
because he forgot that it the slope of the TANGENT (a linear function
and straight line) at a given point, and not the slope of a CURVE?


Impressive!

In one single sentence, Lee managed to make ERRORS in his
recolletion of the definition/meanings of "slope", "first derivative",
and "tangent" of a point of the curve of a nonlinear function.

Yet Lee bragged about having had THREE years of engineering, and
TWO years in computer science, that included courses in calculus
and differential equation.

Lee, you couldn't have found a better example to INDICT the USA's
educational system by producing ignorant graduates like yourself,
and SHOOTING your own foot at the same time!


> Yep, I'm just ignorant and helpless when it comes to statistics
> and mathematics.

Your INTENDED sarcasm backfired at you, and turned out to be the
only TRUE and factually correct statement in your entire post!

-- Bob.

Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote in
news:8fb7380b.0408150834.e094209@posting.google.co m:

> "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<85TSc.14577$nx2.12836@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net>...
>
> felt compelled to add his POLLUTION to the "DCI and PFO ... again"
> thread,
>
> RF> While my post is about PFO which means something to a diver,
> RF> an average one or not, its substance is about CONDITIONAL
> RF> PROBABILITIES snd the use of Bayes Theorem in sorting out
> RF> different conditional probabilities.
>>
>> I saw no statistics. Did somebody actually post some statistically
>> derrived information?
>
> Why should that surprise anyone? For someone who doesn't even
> know that a statistical median or mode is NOT a statistical mean,
> you would have served everyone well by staying out of that
> statistical thread.
>
>
>
> The meanings of those terms were known in the 17th century, in every
> first course in statistics, and should have been settled in 2000 when
> I corrected Professor Vince Brannigan the same ERROR Lee was making
> in 2002, when Lee used it on Jim Greenlee when Jim corrected him:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A132E09
>
>
>
> Below was what I had said about Lee, in 2002, on the same blunders
> he is still making today!
>
> RF> Lee> I'm sure there is a newsgroup somewhere that specializes in
> RF> Lee> in statistics, one where somebody cares what the PROPER
> RF> Lee> usage of terms in statistics is. I'm reasonably sure that
> RF> Lee> this newsgroup is not such a place.
>
> < Lee first placed himself as spokesman of rec.scuba about
> nobody there cares about statistics >
>
> RF> Of course not, because Lee Bell made the same ERRORS as those
> RF> cited, in Statistics and English!
>
> < By English, I was referring to the same Brannigan error Lee
> made, of confusing the statistical NOUN "average", with the
> common use of the word "average" as an ADJECTIVE. >
>
> RF> How dare anyone correct Lee Bell about his errors and
> RF> blunders in any newsgroup? But it's perfectly appropriate
> RF> for Lee to dispense his MISINFORMATION in this very same
> RF> newsgroup about the same subject.
>
> That has become a Lee Bell trademark over the years, on his IGNORANCE
> on matters of mathematics, statistics, physics, and science.
>
>
> On the present PFO thread,
>
>> But even the LEAST equipped reader, scientifically and statistically
>> speaking (Lee Bell, e.g., who has repeatedly proven his ignorance in
>> statistical and mathematical subjects) can always be counted to drop
>> in to put in a dig or two, on his complete ignorance.
>>
> Lee> Yep, that's me. Three yeard of engineering, Two years of
> Lee> computer science and, surprise of surpises, a business degree
> Lee> that included several different statistics courses
>
> That's pretty sad commentary about the quality of the educational
> system in Florida and the rest of the USA, isn't it? "Several
> different statistics courses" and STILL doesn't know what a median
> and a mode is?

Probably has something to do with the quality of the professors (how's that
for causality?)

<snip>


--
Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

Michael Wolf <michael.wolf@advalvasstopspam.be> wrote in message news:<Xns9546C8D561C2michaelwolfstopspamt@195.130. 132.68>...
> Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote in
> news:8fb7380b.0408150834.e094209@posting.google.co m:
>
> > "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:<85TSc.14577$nx2.12836@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net>...
> >
> > felt compelled to add his POLLUTION to the "DCI and PFO ... again"
> > thread,

< ... Lee Bell's blunders snipped ... >
> >
> > On the present PFO thread,
> >
> >> But even the LEAST equipped reader, scientifically and statistically
> >> speaking (Lee Bell, e.g., who has repeatedly proven his ignorance in
> >> statistical and mathematical subjects) can always be counted to drop
> >> in to put in a dig or two, on his complete ignorance.
> >>
> > Lee> Yep, that's me. Three yeard of engineering, Two years of
> > Lee> computer science and, surprise of surpises, a business degree
> > Lee> that included several different statistics courses
> >
> > That's pretty sad commentary about the quality of the educational
> > system in Florida and the rest of the USA, isn't it? "Several
> > different statistics courses" and STILL doesn't know what a median
> > and a mode is?
>
> Probably has something to do with the quality of the professors (how's that
> for causality?)

Of course! That's why we have such a poor educational system in Florida
and the rest of the USA, to let students like Lee Bell pass math. and
stat. courses and graduate without the least bit of understanding about
the subjects.

Not only that -- just look at the archives on the "mode" and "median"
discussion and see how many INSTRUCTORS and PROFESSORS (Vince Brannigan
for one) who profess to teach the subject, was making the same blunders
as Lee and the others in this (and other) newsgroups!



That's only SOME of the professors in the USA. But nearly ALL of the
students who failed or should have failed always blamed it on their
professors rather than themselves.

The "American Way" is to always blame someone else, even if it's
blatently their own fault and responsibity. We have plenty of
examples of that in SCUBA injuries and fatalities. That's what
kept the sharks (the two legged ones) well fed.

Self Reliance and Self Responsibility?

That's definitely ... foreign to this society..

-- Bob.

Reef Fish wrote:
>

> Could it be possible that Lee (DING DONG) Bell made yet another
> blunder by calling it "the slope at a given point" of a curve,
> because he forgot that it the slope of the TANGENT (a linear function
> and straight line) at a given point, and not the slope of a CURVE?
>
> Impressive!

and the difference between the slope of the tangent
and the derivative of the curve evaluated at that point,
and the slope of a very small section of the curve is...?

>
> -- Bob.

The difference is the arithmetic mean of the number of nits that were picked
per usenet message.

"Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41200D04.605E@cox.net...
> Reef Fish wrote:
> >
>
> > Could it be possible that Lee (DING DONG) Bell made yet another
> > blunder by calling it "the slope at a given point" of a curve,
> > because he forgot that it the slope of the TANGENT (a linear function
> > and straight line) at a given point, and not the slope of a CURVE?
> >
> > Impressive!
>
> and the difference between the slope of the tangent
> and the derivative of the curve evaluated at that point,
> and the slope of a very small section of the curve is...?
>
> >
> > -- Bob.

In article <8fb7380b.0408150834.e094209@posting.google.com> , Reef Fish
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:




http://www.ocfoundation.org/ocf1050a.htm






> "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<85TSc.14577$nx2.12836@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net>...
>
> felt compelled to add his POLLUTION to the "DCI and PFO ... again"
> thread,
>
> RF> While my post is about PFO which means something to a diver,
> RF> an average one or not, its substance is about CONDITIONAL
> RF> PROBABILITIES snd the use of Bayes Theorem in sorting out
> RF> different conditional probabilities.
> >
> > I saw no statistics. Did somebody actually post some statistically
> > derrived information?
>
> Why should that surprise anyone? For someone who doesn't even
> know that a statistical median or mode is NOT a statistical mean,
> you would have served everyone well by staying out of that
> statistical thread.
>
>
>
> The meanings of those terms were known in the 17th century, in every
> first course in statistics, and should have been settled in 2000 when
> I corrected Professor Vince Brannigan the same ERROR Lee was making
> in 2002, when Lee used it on Jim Greenlee when Jim corrected him:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A132E09
>
>
>
> Below was what I had said about Lee, in 2002, on the same blunders
> he is still making today!
>
> RF> Lee> I'm sure there is a newsgroup somewhere that specializes in
> RF> Lee> in statistics, one where somebody cares what the PROPER
> RF> Lee> usage of terms in statistics is. I'm reasonably sure that
> RF> Lee> this newsgroup is not such a place.
>
> < Lee first placed himself as spokesman of rec.scuba about
> nobody there cares about statistics >
>
> RF> Of course not, because Lee Bell made the same ERRORS as those
> RF> cited, in Statistics and English!
>
> < By English, I was referring to the same Brannigan error Lee
> made, of confusing the statistical NOUN "average", with the
> common use of the word "average" as an ADJECTIVE. >
>
> RF> How dare anyone correct Lee Bell about his errors and
> RF> blunders in any newsgroup? But it's perfectly appropriate
> RF> for Lee to dispense his MISINFORMATION in this very same
> RF> newsgroup about the same subject.
>
> That has become a Lee Bell trademark over the years, on his IGNORANCE
> on matters of mathematics, statistics, physics, and science.
>
>
> On the present PFO thread,
>
> > But even the LEAST equipped reader, scientifically and statistically
> > speaking (Lee Bell, e.g., who has repeatedly proven his ignorance in
> > statistical and mathematical subjects) can always be counted to drop
> > in to put in a dig or two, on his complete ignorance.
> >
> Lee> Yep, that's me. Three yeard of engineering, Two years of
> Lee> computer science and, surprise of surpises, a business degree
> Lee> that included several different statistics courses
>
> That's pretty sad commentary about the quality of the educational
> system in Florida and the rest of the USA, isn't it? "Several
> different statistics courses" and STILL doesn't know what a median
> and a mode is?
>
>
> Lee > and, in my case, included calculus and differential equations.
>
> And argued for WEEKS because Lee didn't even know what a LINEAR
> function is, and insisted that Volume is a LINEAR function of
> Pressure in Boyle's Law.
>
>
> After many rounds of Mouth Dancing <Lee's tm> and obfuscation
> <another Lee's tm>, Lee FINALLY learned what a LINEAR function is,
> in scuba-L, but felt compelled to stick ANOTHER foot in his mouth:
>
> Lee> Your response to me went beyond the initial error to state
> Lee> "The nonlinear relation does NOT have a slope, as a straight
> Lee> line has a slope".
>
> Lee> The fact that a straight line has a slope does not mean that
> Lee> a curved line does not, as I'm sure you know.
>
> I didn't know THAT!
>
> I only had completed the course work for a Ph.D. in mathematics,
> before completing my course work and Ph.D. degree in statistics,
> how could I possibly have the deep understanding of those
> subjects lectured by Lee Bell in rec.scuba?
>
>
> Lee> In your profession, you surely have extensive knowledge of
> Calculus.
>
> A little. See my paragraph above.
>
>
>
> Lee> Don't hold me to the terms or spelling, but as I recall, the
> Lee> first derivitive of a function is the slope at a given point
>
> Your misspelling of "derivative" is the least of your ERRORS, but it
> is symptomatic of your IGNORANCE of the subject of calculus though.
>
> Could it be possible that Lee (DING DONG) Bell made yet another
> blunder by calling it "the slope at a given point" of a curve,
> because he forgot that it the slope of the TANGENT (a linear function
> and straight line) at a given point, and not the slope of a CURVE?
>
>
> Impressive!
>
> In one single sentence, Lee managed to make ERRORS in his
> recolletion of the definition/meanings of "slope", "first derivative",
> and "tangent" of a point of the curve of a nonlinear function.
>
> Yet Lee bragged about having had THREE years of engineering, and
> TWO years in computer science, that included courses in calculus
> and differential equation.
>
> Lee, you couldn't have found a better example to INDICT the USA's
> educational system by producing ignorant graduates like yourself,
> and SHOOTING your own foot at the same time!
>
>
> > Yep, I'm just ignorant and helpless when it comes to statistics
> > and mathematics.
>
> Your INTENDED sarcasm backfired at you, and turned out to be the
> only TRUE and factually correct statement in your entire post!
>
> -- Bob.

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:160820040722449976%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
> In article <8fb7380b.0408150834.e094209@posting.google.com> , Reef Fish
> <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ocfoundation.org/ocf1050a.htm

priceless

Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<160820040722449976%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.co m>...
> In article <8fb7380b.0408150834.e094209@posting.google.com> , Reef Fish
> <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.ocfoundation.org/ocf1050a.htm
>
>

Alan,

I hope you don't mind my asking if the link above was your behavior
or Lee's behavior in your common OCS of being compelled to post
entirely gratuitous and frivolous posts in ngs.

You present post certainly contributed ABSOLUTE ZERO to the subject
of PFO, Conditional or Unconditional probabilities, or anything in
defence of Lee's or your own OC behavior.

-- Bob.

>
>
>
> > "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:<85TSc.14577$nx2.12836@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net>...
> >
> > felt compelled to add his POLLUTION to the "DCI and PFO ... again"
> > thread,
> >
> > RF> While my post is about PFO which means something to a diver,
> > RF> an average one or not, its substance is about CONDITIONAL
> > RF> PROBABILITIES snd the use of Bayes Theorem in sorting out
> > RF> different conditional probabilities.

In article <8fb7380b.0408161121.77be2d86@posting.google.com >, Reef Fish
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<160820040722449976%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.co m>...
> > In article <8fb7380b.0408150834.e094209@posting.google.com> , Reef Fish
> > <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.ocfoundation.org/ocf1050a.htm
> >
> >
>
> Alan,
>
> I hope you don't mind my asking if the link above was your behavior
> or Lee's behavior in your common OCS of being compelled to post
> entirely gratuitous and frivolous posts in ngs.
>
> You present post certainly contributed ABSOLUTE ZERO to the subject
> of PFO, Conditional or Unconditional probabilities, or anything in
> defence of Lee's or your own OC behavior.
>
> -- Bob.
>

Bob, you're the ultimate straight man. Thanks!

Alan

Alan Street <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote:
>http://www.ocfoundation.org/ocf1050a.htm

Are you sure it's not ADD?

It's obvious that someone here hasn't been getting enough attention lately.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com