mkaresh

Don't agree with Wellardmac and do what he tells you? Then you're clearly a fool, and should expect to be aggressively insulted.

It takes a big ego to be so sure you're always right.

Wellardmac

It's not a question of disagreeing with me, or ego, it is a matter of you having clearly flawed statistical methods.

We've covered this before. There's no disagreeing with fact. To disagree with clearly established fact is foolish. To persist with a flawed endeavor is called a "fool's errand" - come to your own conclusions.

mkaresh

Believe it or not, but I come across people who I feel are incorrect from time to time, yet I don't forcefully tell them what to do or insult them when they don't do what I tell them to.

Plenty of useful information can be gathered without a large, randomly selected sample. I'm far from the only thoroughly educated person who believes this.

Wellardmac

Okay, I'll apologize if you can convince me that you are collecting data that actually means something.

You have so far failed to convince anyone here that knows anything about statistics, or experimental design that this is useful information.

Simply meet the burden of validity and I'll happily endorse what you're doing, but until then you should resign yourself to the fact that those that ARE qualified to pass judgement will do so. That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

mkaresh

I understand your position and that there are others who hold it. Such discussions within my field of study go back decades, and people who adhere to one side are rarely convinced of the other.

The problem isn't that you disagree with me. You're welcome to this. The problem is that you simply cannot allow for positions other than your own, and especially the way you express yourself through juvenile insults. Why isn't it sufficient to state your position? Why are the insults so clearly necessary?

There are reasonable people with a knowledge of statistics who agree with what I'm doing and how I do it. And who do not agree with you. But they're not going to post here because they don't care to be insulted.

Does a win really feel like a win when it's achieve through insults?

Wellardmac

You will note that I have mocked your endeavor as foolish. I did not insult you personally - there is a difference.

The fact that you take my mockery of your methods as insults is more a reflection on you than my words or intentions - you're just projecting there - your passive aggressive tone will not work on me.

Those that disagree with you have not stated anything other than fact - something that you cannot refute. I state it as black and white.... because it really is black and white... there are no shades of grey here.

Sorry, we're not still in school where grade inflation rules and a phone call from mommy will make Prof. Dell raise his grade. Life is harsh and judgement can be cruel when you don't have the facts on your side.

I really do need to unsubscribe from this running joke.... Dell, you owe me a latte for this one.

mkaresh

Oh, you've stated plenty of things that aren't fact.

The need for a large, randomly selected sample is not black and white for the analysis I have been performing. You refute results like those I posted earlier today--which many people have found useful--not because you can find anything clearly wrong with them, but because you reject the methods used to gather the data based on theory.

You'd have us believe that no useful knowledge has ever been gained without textbook-perfect sampling methods. This is clearly false. The great majority of what you personally "know" to be true was gained through other methods. You just feel otherwise about it because it was your personal experience.

You have insulted me personally more times than I care to count since I started posting here. For someone who claims to place so much value on facts, you ignore things that truly are black and white--and that remain clearly visible in this thread and the one before it--quite readily.

"The facts" force you to be cruel?

Sorry, but judgment is only cruel when the people who deliver it enjoy being cruel. Where the facts are truly on someone's side, and these facts are sufficient, there is no need for cruelty. The point of cruelty is to silence valid dissenting opinions. History is rife with examples.

Wellardmac

I'm sorry that you feel that I hurt your feelings.

I have mocked your methods many times, because they deserve to be mocked - you have represented them as being more meaningful than they are. I have mocked you personally only on one occasion and quickly retracted the comment because that's just not my style.

I have no control over whether you take mockery of your statistically flawed methods personally.

mkaresh

Where did I say you'd hurt my feelings? Where have I said anything about my feelings? Another non-fact.

I don't have to actually feel insulted for something you post to be an insult.

"Cruel" was your own description. You realize that you are being cruel, and that I SHOULD feel insulted.

The instance you deleted was only the most extreme instance, not the only instance. You deleted it only after I called you out, and for once you actually seemed to realize that you shouldn't have posted what you posted.

It clearly is your style. If you're going to be the way you are, at least own up to it.

Wellardmac

Cruel was your word not mine. As usual you are attributing your words to others. You are not even reading posts, just making up what you would like to read and responding to posts that exist only in your head. Same MO as you tried with Macster and BruceP - we don't play games like that.

I've had more productive drunken conversations with walls than I'll ever have with you. Its time for me to unsubscribe and put you on the ignore list. I'm done with you.

mkaresh

My memory isn't always the best, so I performed a search to be sure.

"Cruel" was first used in post #156 by you. I first used it in #157 in response to your post.

Typical that you overlook even what's right here on the current page, while claiming to be stating nothing but facts. And then claim that I'm the one not reading.

Can't say I'd mind if you ignore me. But I'm not going to get my hopes up. This isn't the first time you've said you were done.

jasper

This thread brings to mind a couple of internet memes:

Apologies for any offense taken....

mkaresh

The 2002 reached the minimum and was added to the survey earlier this month.

The 1999 is only four cars away from getting started, and the 2001 and 2003 are each three-quarters of the way.

Those of you who have signed up to help out, thanks, I certainly appreciate it.

Car reliability research

OZ951

OK, this was a painful thread to work through and I have to admit that I didn't read it word for word so I may have missed something. I did end up with a (legitimate) question though, to those Rennlisters who have qualifications in the field enough to argue the methods being used in this survey- have you got a more valid non commercial survey or analysis focused on IMS failures underway somewhere?

BruceP

No. Nobody does, except perhaps Porsche. And the older these cars get and the more preventative work gets done, the less likely it is that even they have a complete picture.

From a technical point of view, it is highly unlikely that even the most pessimistic IMS failure rate would fall outside the margin of error for this survey (not to mention that the methodology wouldn't capture failures in the pre-survey past).

From a speculative point of view, if someone had such a failure and lost their engine over it, I'm going to guess that their first response won't be to scurry over to the computer and update their survey results. Many don't even keep the car.

Sorry, but this will never be your IMS failure rate grail.