The S/N over there is so tiny it’s difficult to determine that tamino has responded to fine technical issues with a fine technical response. Generally so it seems to me, he dodges the toughies and always plays to his peanut gallery. The tech/nontech content there is also tiny, Imho.

2+2=4 is only true for sufficiently large values of 2.

Would that be in cartesian or polar coordinates?

http://web.grinnell.edu/individuals/kuipers/stat2labs/Handouts/GW%20Paper%20USCOTS.doc

I had wondered why you hadn’t responded to Tamino and now I know that you did but were censored. I have to ask, tho, why you used strong language, like BS, in your original post and response. BS it may be, but to get your message heard wouldn’t it be better to write respectfully?

After reading the exchange, I strained my brain to come up with better terminology for Tamino’s responses and I kept coming up with BS and more BS. Contrast Jean S’s measured response in terms of how a statistician would handle the process using accepted practices and how Tamino deals with it with partial averages and Rule N. I do not think one needs to be a practicing statistician to see that those attempting to rescue the MBH methodology tend to use a lot of BS — creative and inventive, but BS just the same.

ha ha ha ha!!! priceless

“The value of a scientist is enhanced by the experience of hurt from personal falure; it is more greatly enhanced by the enjoyment of acknowledged personal success.”

Rider. When the scientist has no objective test for success or failure, do not use this Postulate.

Comments designed to annoy tamino: 2+2=4

2+2=4 is only true for sufficiently large values of 2. But let’s turn to the models and see what they have to say.