Re: The rise and RISE of Marc Pittonet
Reply #29 –
Pfffttt a debate based on the complex number.
You've spent several pages defending stats you made up, which I suspect might in the eyes of many consign your opinion to the dungeons of irrelevance given the seemingly plastic nature of the definitions.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I sued the numbers you delivered presuming them to be true, and I found them to be false, which you seem to have confirmed from your own keyboard!
How does anyone debate your "numerical facts", if we take what you post as legitimate and find a flaw in your conclusions you debunk those criticism effectively using a spirited defence of "That can't be true because I made the stats up, nah, nah nah nah!"
I suspect if we debunk your conclusions from your made up stats using real statistics, you'll probably defend your claims with a call of "That's not what I meant by the definition!"
Further rather than defend your claims with some hard evidence, you resort to petty verbal, which I'm sure you'll defend using reflection.
The irony for me is that I credited Pittonet with 3.5 hits to advantage a game, which you basically lauded as some sort of fraud or derision of Pittonet, then you offer a new/revised imaginary definition under what effectively is a defence of "I made it up, so that is not what I meant". In the wash up even the revised definition probably rates Pittonet for grand total of about +1/2 of a hit out to advantage more. Stats presented by yourself as a percentage to make it look like a bigger difference, but when +/- 1 hitout changes the percentage by +/- 4% or 5% do you expect readers to take you seriously?