It's interesting that when Snow has a point to make, it's OK to use a very simple correlation -- more eyes equals higher prices. But when someone else has a point, such as that examination of a reasonable sampling of high dollar auctions could be indicative of hanky panky, HIS anaylsis is way too simplistic to prove anything and is meaningless buffoonery absent a full deep data dive. Hmmmm.
Let me guess, Snow will say apples to oranges.
Or maybe he'll say that since he alone understands data, he alone can determine how much is needed for any given question.
__________________
Four phrases I nave coined that sum up today's hobby:
No consequences.
Stuff trumps all.
The flip is the commoodity.
Animal Farm grading.
Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 09-21-2021 at 07:20 PM.
|