WalterTrull
Godfella
Ya know. I lived in Manhattan for a bunch of years, then Jersey. I always had a soft spot for the Cuomos. I still sorta do, but it's becoming a bit like reviewing the old guard.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Numbers Lie?
- Thread starter WalterTrull
- Start date
I got a good deal by exchanging 3 4 5.
Makes sense. If they're not including all the relevant data and contributing factors, then I would consider that a lie of omission.
When I was a kid, I found sports statistics to be most fascinating, especially as they would get more and more specialized. Some player would be up at bat, and the announcers would say "he has hit .435 when there are two outs with runners in scoring position during night games when it's a full moon." This statement might give the viewers some hope that the player up at bat might actually get a hit and win the ballgame. Other than that, it's a completely useless stat and has no bearing whatsoever on whatever the possible outcome might be.
I think the famous Mart Twain quote says it best:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Number don't lie, but they might not answer the question you *thought* you asked.
Heyo
Veteran Member
And then you have to build a planet sized supercomputer and wait for four-and-a-half billion years to get the right question.
No one has mentioned that deceptive duo, 5 and 6, which are often mistaken for each other on our infernal inventions, the digital clocks. 