#21 [url]

Apr 27 17 2:32 PM

abramjones wrote:
ctr wrote:
abramjones wrote:
... then we will truly see how countries like Uruguay rank.

Yes – you are ‚The Real Deal’. And your ranking will be great! The course of the motion of the molecules (→‘Brownian motion’) will have to be reconsidered. Very helpful will be the fantastic quality of the underlying database … Ranking 2014 (federtopfoot): Brazil 1, Germany 7. Great! That’s exactly what happened in 2014 …

And the consequences of your proposals would be that Portugal would never again play against France, but against any French region. Why should they do this? – if they could (after 10 defeats in a row) beat France and could become European Champion!

     nfm 24 wrote:
    
Now we are just playing Salieri to your Mozart...

Topic here is ‘Historic Rankings’. Although we should make a difference between the ‘historic’ Salieri, who was very different to the ‘movie version’…: for the purpose of fun let’s occur for a moment Milos Forman’s evil Salieri:


He thrashes all who stands for Mozart. ‘Abram’, you are the first one …! smiley: roll

sarcasm and second language go terribly together. but if i am translating your france portugal argument properly, the answer is simple (which you practically answered yourself). portugal's 10 losses against france are not an appropriate result in regards to the ratio of performance and resources.

your brazil germany argument is also poor (again, if i am understanding you properly). cherry picking 1 example to attempt to prove a statistical analysis wrong is a rudimentary mathematical mistake. see the law of large numbers.

so i assume since you are so against my ideas that a united europe vs cape verde game in football would be an excellent match such as a match between croatia and serbia, and a basketball game featuring the united states vs united states virgin islands will certainly tell us a lot about who is better (this is sarcasm by the way).



Your response reminds me of Mark Twain…: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Proper English! – But, less ‘terribly sarcastic’ than my post?

Well, you felt mocked and attacked …
In such a mood one sometimes says nonsense. Therefore I will not take everything literally. You get a ‘bonus…’: I will not use Mark Twain against you!

>
so i assume since you are so against my ideas …

Your assumption is completely wrong! In terrible SLE I replied to a post from you. At that time you could understand SLE properly … (perhaps you were in a better condition than today). From my post you could not conclude that I am against your ideas to consider wealth and size of countries. Imho they are welcome to be discussed in this forum.

On this page, you can search for terms that have been used in posts. It’s a useful (occasionally funny) tool. For example, you can see how many times “brain” occurred within the posts… In your posts “brain” never occurred. But we should not jump to conclusions. For example, nfm24: it took 6 ½ years until "brain" occurred for the first time in one of his posts (10/11/2013) – however, in context of Balotelli...
So - you can just conclude that nfm24 is either a (sarcastic) misanthropeor a philanthropist, who loves human beings so much, that he (in a tactful manner) rarely mentions their brain…
By the way, in the King-James-Bible “brain” also never occurs.
Maybe, edifices of ideas

          which are based on beliefs (and are manifestedeven if they are well-intentioned)
and “brain” represent two very different categories which rarely match each other.

Be that as it may: numbers allow at most ‘conditional’ conclusions. Without critical analysis, they are worthless for the purpose of deductive reasoning.

If you search for
socioeconomic…: no surprise, that’s your term → in almost all cases where the term appeared, you were the author. But – the first one who used the term was … yes, ctr!

I wrote about “issues of infrastructure” and their importance for the outcome. And socioeconomic factors are one of the keystones for/of ‘infrastructure’.

> … that a united europe vs cape verde game in football would be an excellent match … (this is sarcasm by the way).

This time it is not sarcasm … it’s just an additional indication that you were out of order when you wrote these words and your post. According to your ranking (you called it ‘a statistical analysis’) Cape Verde would be a much better – because a more attractive – opponent than Italy! Both are on the same level (ranking as of 31/03/2017: Italy 22nd, Cape Verde 23rd) but Cape Verde “showed” better offensive qualities …
You picked a cherry (Cape Verde) but your strange perception couldn’t realise it!

Next cherry: what about Moldova? FederTopFoot (as of 31/03/2017): #62. They are ahead against Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary (all three were qualified for EURO 2016 …) Given the table values and their opponents, in the last four years in 41 games Moldova would have had to win at least one time more often than to lose (actual result: W – L = minus 16, instead of
>= plus 1).
Moldova is particularly interesting! Same size as Uruguay! Fewer players available, much poorer, Human Development Index: far behind! Perhaps Moldova is truly better than Uruguay... and the real #1 – at least in your world

> your brazil germany argument is also poor (again, if i am understanding you properly). cherry picking 1 example to attempt to prove a statistical analysis wrong is a rudimentary mathematical mistake. see the law of large numbers.

What else than a cherry should I have picked when the FederTopFoot ranking is a cherry pie? I picked just the funniest example.
You are not qualified to read data. And – as long as you think that you are the ‘Real Deal’ (or act in this way) – you are not qualified to understand anything properly or to make judgments (which arguments are poor – what is a ‘statistical analysis’ (from a few data to extrapolate a round-robin-tournament is no ‘analysis’) – or, what are mathematical mistakes). The providing of a link to a Wiki-article was in this case a little bit dumb.

Or - in your characteristic style: incompetence and highfalutin talk of a pompous ass go terribly together.

I did not attack and I do not attack you but your behavior. If you are able to change it, I offer my full support. Many forum members also offered their support. You refused any support. The only criterion for you was to get a ‘database’ – rhyme or reason of the data: irrelevant.

Final remarks: I really appreciate it if someone has unconventional ideas, is not part of the mainstream, or is a non-conformist. In my view even terms like ‘quirky’ are not negatively connoted.
But - it is important not to rule out completely that one’s own position can become ridiculous.

wrong-way-driver.jpg

If the alienation (V-effekt) of the quotation has conjured a silent smile on your face, you are headed in the right direction...
If you continue to feel affronted, you lack humour.