"Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:<40b39b93$0$105$6c56adcd@news.qnet.com>...
> "Reef Fish" wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.0405250618.4e097532@posting.google.com...
>
> Again, what are the chances that there are two such William Boyds?
> Assuming, rightly, that the odds are much less than 50/50, I have easily
> satisfied your burden of proof requirement. Also, I'd remind you that this
> is not a court of law, but a court of Usenet.
But you HAVEN'T established with ANY evidence, let alone the
preponderance of evidence, that someone who posted under the email
address was indeed the who
made the post in question. The reason I gave was this:
>
> > use others' email addresses to post quite often -- as kids
> > use dad's; wife use hubby's, or vice versa; friends use
> > friend's; ad nauseum. Statistically, the chances that the
> > two William Boyds posting under
> > and are NOT the same person is much
> > higher than YOU think.
>
> > In any event, the burden of proof lies with YOU to proof
> > that your is unequivocally the same poster
> > .
>
> Now you say "unequivocally" which is even greater
> than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
BHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now THAT's a statement that made it both unequivocal
and beyond a reasonable doubt" that you don't know as much about LAW
as you think you do, as I had already said probably both you and
Judge Wapner were ignorant about the DOUR different kinds of courts
and their "proof" standards.
> > Now you're sending Judge Wapner and Judge Judy LAUGHING in duet,
Let me chime in as a trio, in the laughing chorus. :-)
I was Full Professor at Harvard when Joself L. Gastwirth gave a
Joint Colloquium Lecture to the Harvard Law School and the Harvard
Department of Statistics, on the topic, "Statistics and Law," the
substance of which was later published in The American Statistician
55 (February 1992).
The talk and article were based on DATA on 10 Federal judges
who were asked to rate THEIR "probability assessment" of guilt
of defendants before they would convict, under different known,
standard conviction criteria, stated in non-probabilistic terms:
(criminal. as in O.J. criminal trial) Beyond any reasonable
or shadow of a doubt. O.J. was not convicted.
(Certain Federal) Clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence.
(Certain Other Federal) Clear and convincing evidence.
(Civil, as in Judge Wapner's court) Preponderance Of Evidence.
All judges got the last one right, answering with probability
numers (stated in percents) like: 50+, 50.1, 51, reflecting
only their numerical precision or roundoff digit used.
A few judges clearly erred, as Greg Mossman did, rating
"unequivocal evidence" as higher probability than what it
takes to convict in criminal court, requiring "beyond any
reasonable or shadow of a doubt" which most judges related
to 90& and 95%, whereas the "unequivocal" proof was
correctly related to 75%, or at least a probability figure
LESS than their 90 or 95% figures used.
Greg> "unequivocally" which is even greater
Greg> than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
No Greg. Go back and review some law books. :-)
YOu have not SHOWN a shred of evidence that
is the SAME poster as . You only asked
an irrelevant question reflecting your own faulty conjecture.
See also the references in:
http://www.willyancey.com/statistical_evidence.htm
-- Bob. |
