Re: Note To Roger
Posted by chris in suburbia on January 11, 2004 at 07:06:05:

Petra, Roger may also post, but I would say you misread Roger's note (which are usually short and sometimes open to interpretation). He did not say that you were right 1/3 of the time and that this was not better than chance. He said that until your predictions are tested, they could be due to chance. I would second that. If someone posts predictions on this page, these predictions should be tested by others-to the extent that others are capable of doing this and have the time and inclination. There is an inclination by some on this page to think something is true/is a fact just because it has been posted on this page-and off they go using that as a base for what they are doing. It is useful for some of us (John, Don, Roger, me, Canie...) to provide some guidance.

If you don't want your predictions tested, then why post them? For my couple of predictions-I don't claim any scientific method/ability to predict, and mine are so few (maybe 5), that they are not worth testing.
Chris


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Note To Chris - Petra  09:17:27 - 1/11/2004  (21059)  (1)
        ● Re: Note To Chris - Canie  15:31:30 - 1/14/2004  (21083)  (1)
           ● clarification - chris in suburbia  12:12:59 - 1/15/2004  (21087)  (1)
              ● Re: clarification - Canie  19:54:45 - 1/15/2004  (21094)  (0)