Steve Smith: Bridgewater is QB for "right now"

[LinvilleGorge]

No, it's frustrating to try to argue against someone who is completely dismissive of data and has no understanding or desire to understand the data actually presented. Who can't even communicate the data that has been presented because he'd already predetermined he would ignore it anyway.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

I'd love to be one of your students. I'm pretty sure I could convince you to give me an A even though I never even showed up to take a test because all those zeroes for grades are ancillary at best, irrelevant, and not an accurate representation of anything. I deserve an A because that's what I've predetermined to be the case.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

No, it's frustrating to try to argue against someone who is completely dismissive of data and has no understanding or desire to understand the data actually presented. Who can't even communicate the data that has been presented because he'd already predetermined he would ignore it anyway.

 

dude, learning is a blast. if you presented something to me that gave me insight into something i hadn't thought about or a way to use a stat that i hadn't previously considered, it would be not only welcome but encouraged. it has happened countless times on this board and others like it because my knowledge of anything isn't comprehensive. however, what you did was provide a single data point to draw an incredibly damning criticism of a player and that data provides an incomplete account of the point you're trying to make. all that i have been doing this entire time is trying to offer you a few examples of why that data point can't support the weight of that criticism and to show you that the criticism originates from you and not from the stat. the stat doesn't want to prove anything because it doesn't have a motive. the onus of explaining what that stat means specifically regarding this player falls on you when you present the data point. my refutations of what is in my opinion an incorrect application of those metrics only serve to discredit the faulty conclusions you drew from them, not the data itself which can neither be disagreed with or agreed with provided they are accurate. it's intellectually dishonest to say that i don't understand the data because i don't agree with your interpretation. 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Vagrant said:

dude, learning is a blast. if you presented something to me that gave me insight into something i hadn't thought about or a way to use a stat that i hadn't previously considered, it would be not only welcome but encouraged. it has happened countless times on this board and others like it because my knowledge of anything isn't comprehensive. however, what you did was provide a single data point to draw an incredibly damning criticism of a player and that data provides an incomplete account of the point you're trying to make. all that i have been doing this entire time is trying to offer you a few examples of why that data point can't support the weight of that criticism and to show you that the criticism originates from you and not from the stat. the stat doesn't want to prove anything because it doesn't have a motive. the onus of explaining what that stat means specifically regarding this player falls on you when you present the data point. my refutations of what is in my opinion an incorrect application of those metrics only serve to discredit the faulty conclusions you drew from them, not the data itself which can neither be disagreed with or agreed with provided they are accurate. it's intellectually dishonest to say that i don't understand the data because i don't agree with your interpretation. 

Yes. Now you're onto something here.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yes. Now you're onto something here.

you continue to purport that you offered this abundance of numerical evidence that just isn't there. you're already so far past the point of decided on the subject that you can't be moved from it and consider any query regarding clarification to be an attack on your intellect or credibility or some such. you're offended that you'd even have to support it. that sucks because you very likely have the capacity to understand the nuance of the discussion, but you're willfully defiant to discourse on the matter and have responded in quips instead of elucidating. it's a bad choice, but a choice nonetheless. 

[LinvilleGorge]

You failed miserably to list the stats that I'd posted. Intellectual dishonest actually sums up your approach in this thread perfectly. Using big words and talking in circles doesn't change this reality.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

You failed miserably to list the stats that I'd posted. Intellectual dishonest actually sums up your approach in this thread perfectly.

not quite. you're saying you have offered an abundance of stats. i am saying i don't see these stats you offered. you are responding by saying look at these stats. i tell you i don't see those stats and round the maypole we go. if you had any interest in intellectually defending your point you would have attempted to show me what i was missing and not just continue to mock the fact that i simply don't see them. my supposition on this is that the other stats to which you reference are vague and offer no true assistance to the assertion you're making and you're uncomfortable presenting them again because they will be subsequently discredited as not helpful to your initial point. 

[LinvilleGorge]

I tried. You didn't read any of it. You've clearly demonstrated that.

[Vagrant]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I tried. You didn't read any of it. You've clearly demonstrated that.

now you're attempting to turn this discussion into a war of attrition where the first to walk away cedes the point and you can walk away feeling as if you've won the appropriate internet points. let me make that easy for you and go ahead and abandon my attempt to help you out. if you come back to this thread at some point later and have a desire to actually engage with the subject instead of playing Where's Waldo with your supporting evidence, that would be a refreshing change. i won't hold my breath for that, but i have been surprised before. 

[LinvilleGorge]

I was simply trying to get you to acknowledge arguments actually made instead of your predetermined course of action of attacking strawmen. But, keep thinking you're "helping". LOL!