Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
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.
|
Same thing I'm seeing in many of his posts. He does know how to use prettier words, and puts them together very well. You really have to read, pay attention, and comprehend to get the gist of what he's saying, and figure out if it is meaningful or just empty words. He does make many good points, and brings up logical and thought provoking counter ideas, but forgets that at the end of the day a lot of it is nothing more than unsupported opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. And in commenting here on a pre-war forum, that is relevant and has to be taken into consideration. You always have to consider the audience you are talking to if you are looking to prove your point, especially in a back and forth type situation he often gets into.
Now based on how he typically responds, I'd expect him to answer back that he doesn't really care if others believe him and his points or not. Or that he's not really trying to change anyone's mind, but will respond in some manner usually that makes people feel he still questions why they don't just automatically acquiesce and accept his point of view on different topics like this one because of his logic and thinking. Which is why I asked the question of him if he knowingly continues on with this contrarian banter because he enjoys irking people, or if truly doesn't have a clue how he comes across.