 | | Re: Debate —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) The "need" for OT.Debate has often been discussed, and good points have been raised both pro and con. I suppose the bottom line is that OT squabbles will arise in most of the LUGNET discussion groups as a matter of course, so it's helpful to (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Debate —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | | (...) Gosh. 95%? I didn't know it was so high. It seems like the only way you could really disagree with me that much was to have incredibly middle of the road views. I mostly radical stances but in all "directions." Is that how you would (...) (23 years ago, 6-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Debate —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) That was more of a hyperbole, really, and sort of a nod to your superior grasp of statistics. Anyway, I'm sure most of our disagreements are merely online--I think in the real world our views would be much more compatible. (...) See? That's my (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Debate —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | | (...) You said something to that effect a couple of days ago. It's funny -- I consider myself a complete amature when it comes to statistics. I'm comfy applying and analyzing stats to social-science kind of situations and I can use SAS, SPSS, or (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
