Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S.C.Carlson · 03-14-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

He states that he uses Swanson which in GJohn makes use of 50 or so manuscripts

If Wieland is using Swanson, then even f1 and f13 are not really group readings, but the readings of MSS 1 and 13, respectively.

Stephen

Julian · 03-15-2007, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

If Wieland is using Swanson, then even f1 and f13 are not really group readings, but the readings of MSS 1 and 13, respectively.

Stephen

Even better than that, actually, looking at the introduction to John in more detail. Swanson says that, (too much text to type in right now so I will summarize) f1 consists of 1, 118, and 1582 are read for this work. They are cited individually when they disagree. He also talks at some length regarding 1582*. For f13 he uses 13, 69, 124, 788, and 1346, again citing them individually when are in disagreement.

It would seem that he uses the group designation as shorthand for adding the weight of the group(s) to a reading but will cite individually when needed. In other words, no real use of these two as groups.

Julian

Nazaroo · 03-15-2007, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

There is no reason to even respond to the silliness posted by Nazaroo and no point in sending it to Wieland unless it would be for entertainment value. Of course, I must make a few comments in the interest of showing just how far you can push sarcasm. In reality, I am actually rather mad that charlatan posts such as Nazaroo's are allowed to stand without comment and I therefore consider it my duty to show just how ridiculous his words are.

speaking of 'charlatan posts', is this supposed to be a 'refutation' of the careful instructional presentation I gave everyone reading the thread?

YOU didn't offer to lift a finger to explain PCA. At least I took on the task, and now your whining sounds a bit like sour grapes.

Quote:

While there is no doubt that Nazaroo suddenly figured out that he needed to put some actual numbers out there to illustrate his point and proceeded accordingly one must be amazed at the final bits. It starts out fairly reasonable, it shows in a limited way what PCA is, cleverly phrased in such a way that he skews the representation to fit his later nazaroo-math-is-from-an-alternate-universe conclusion, but even so, I started out pleasantly surprised.

Thanks for the backhanded compliments, (and the unsupported insults), I guess that means you couldn't find fault with at least 3/4 of the presentation.

Quote:

It then slowly starts to degenerate into eyebrow-raising holy-ghost-statistics, for lack of a better term, where we see entirely unwarranted statements, such as pointing out that if the signal to noise differential is very small, it doesn't work as well. Really? It's not magical? Who knew? And how about, if your data is really messy, unrelated and/or disorganized it also would not produce great results. The PCA is a never-ending disaster!

So far you are just confirming to readers my assessment of PCA. When are you going to show there is something wrong with my post?

Quote:

He talks about a rotation transformation. Hmmm, a rotation transformation, if I remember correctly what I have been doing for a living for the last two-and-a-half decades, is the transformation of a vector (n-dimensional point, if you will) through a transformation matrix. Gee, I guess exactly like a PCA... Except, of course, that the PCA does its best to emphasize results of significance in the amplitude domain whereas a rotational view based on a personal 'heuristics' approach (spin it until it fits) would be entirely subjective, in other words, very useful to your evangelist statistician.

Any idiot can see the point of my example. Instead of acknowledging the obvious ways that PCA can fail, you engage in obscurantism and try to slag me as an "evangelist".

This is beginning to sound like a broken record. Anytime anyone disagrees with you, they are to be caricatured as a fundamentalist, evangelist, creationist, or some kind of pseudo-scientist.

If even an agnostic presentation like this is "evangelism", what's left? Are die-hard atheists who disagree with you also going to become 'hysterical religious fanatics'?

Its beginning to look like a 'no win' situation.

Perhaps you are projecting some personal issues just a little too hard to be rational, scientific and disinterested here. Maybe its your own lack of proper credentials that's eating you.

No skin off my nose. I just feel for you, embarrassing yourself like this.

Quote:

Of course, in Nazaroo's inept example the researcher would know the nature of the distorion in his data and could adjust for it. The example is contrived to show that the PCA is not perfect which nobody has ever claimed. But you all know how it works: if a hole can be shown then an elephant the size of 'faith' can easily pass through.

Again with the lame, yet almost hysterical 'faith' stuff. How about sticking to science.

What is the matter with you? Is the idea of a scientist who has some religious interest or philosophical ideas beyond 19th century materialism too scarey for you?

Maybe you should catch a movie, like Scarey Movie 3, and chill out.

Quote:

He then goes on to some genuine, well, I am not sure how I can classify them since this board prohibits anything I might say to describe their nature... Let's take a few example of his -representations:

The Data Table has to be square. Hmmm. Gee, isn't it interesting that a COVARIANCE MATRIX IS ALWAYS SQUARE!!! If I start out with two manuscripts, for example, and generate a covariance matrix then the resulting covariance matrix is 2x2, no matter how many measurements I start out with. I could measure 1000 things for, say, three manuscript and the result shown in a covariance matrix WOULD BE 3 x 3 MATRIX!!! Now we must wonder if Nazaroo truly doesn't understand the basics of covariance matrices, or he... A covariance matrix measures the relation of one axis to another.

Again, no disagreement with the contents of my presentation. Yet you characterize me as "doesn't understand the basics".

Strange that I can teach the basics, even dig into its philosophical underpinnings, without 'understanding the basics'.

Quote:

Moving right along, we notice that Nazaroo has added von Soden's groups to the PCA plot graphic. He doesn't say that he added them but he did.

...except I described my additional labels quite clearly the first time I posted this chart. More red herrings, but no substance to any charges.

Quote:

Of course, von Soden's classifications are not used very much anymore, being somewhat antiquated.

Except the latest two critical Greek texts to compete with UBS, Hodges/Farstad (1987) and Robinson/Pierpont (2006) BOTH use von Soden's groups in this section.

"not used very much anymore"?

Perhaps "von Soden's classifications are still found to be indespensable" would be closer to the mark.

Quote:

He then complains that Willker treats a group like a single manuscript. In this case he goes on about f13 but it might as well have been f1, two manuscript groups that are routinely, traditionally and always treated collectively and not a single text crit scholar in the world would argue with that. Nazaroo would argue with that because it suits his purpose otherwise, rest assured, he would have dismissed the complaint.

Well, we expected that Julian would do some handwaving at the point where he was caught being blatantly wrong about a claim. Julian had claimed that Willker didn't use Groups as input. His own chart shows he did.

"because it suits his purpose": Again, more bickering about nebulous motives and conspiracy theories instead of an honest confrontation of the facts.

Quote:

You will notice that this never comes up in Willker's PCA study which was my stated focus all along. Besides, those two families are from the 12th and 13th centuries, fairly useless in many ways (but they do have a number of interesting features), this, of course, makes them excellent for byzantine purposes. Except when they don't. Willker never uses groups in his PCA study. He states that he uses Swanson which in GJohn makes use of 50 or so manuscripts (I didn't bother counting them, being tired and all, I leave this as an exercise for the reader. I wouldn't trust Nazaroo's counting abilities, though).

Again Julian tries to move the goalposts to some other paper by Willker. But this thread is about the PA and Willker's paper on the PA.

Note the 'Byzantine' conspiracy stuff keeps creeping in again.

Quote:

Statement after statement crashes on the rocks and sinks into ignominy, " he must have started with an N x N data-table of numbers," WRONG.

Scholarship is looking for more text types, WRONG. They are looking for a better definition or delineation, no telling where it might lead.

Julian's claim about Willker not using groups as input is false, WRONG. I have posted the link to the PCA study and referred to that. Someone show me where, in that study, Willker uses groups as input. Good luck, hope you live that long. I am not talking about his commentary, never were.

The first point is taken out of context. Willker needs to start with an NxN data table to do the PCA calculations. I obviously am aware that he didn't start at the very beginning with an NxN table, since its one of my complaints that he dropped some data.

The second point is not a quote. He massages my statement to make it look incorrect. The original quote is; "So the tendency of recent scholarship is to find MORE text-types (Groups) within the available MS tradition, not less."
Which remains true.

Third, Julian again tries to divert us back to some other paper by Willker. Great. Except that paper is not about the PA or the application of PCA to it.

Quote:

Most of Nazaroo's points rely on Willker's necessity of needing a square matrix which is entirely and absolutely incorrect and shows his the-count-from-sesame-street level of understanding of linear algebra.

Most of my points involve other limitations and problems with PCA, but now Julian wants to slant the impression for those who don't read it through carefully.

Again he simply insults me by suggesting I have a 'child-like' understanding of some branch of mathematics. Yet he has presented NO explanations of the relatively difficult math here (for most non-technical people), and has demonstrated no mathematical ability himself or understanding of PCA either.

He has certainly not helped anyone else understand PCA or the issues these techniques raise.

Quote:

In conclusion, I will say that I respect the rules of this board and as a moderator I am bound to uphold them. This prevents me from from stating my actual opinion and true emotions regarding Nazaroo as a person and that's where I will leave that issue.

I suppose Julian wants a medal of honour for this. But I think that as a moderator, its a basic duty to behave himself. Perhaps better than he has.

Should we appreciate that he hasn't abused his moderator powers? Yes.

Has he shown remarkable restraint? Compared to some other moderators on other boards, yes. Full credit should be awarded where it is due.

Should we lower our expectations for standards of moderator behaviour, because of abuses elsewhere? No.

Quote:

As for his posts, I can certainly say a lot but frankly, his infantile and amateurish crap (and I shall allow myself such language on this occasion) posted on this forum as well as on his website just goes to illustrate that there is no substitute for thinking for yourself. May Thor (who is cool) have mercy upon those that use Nazaroo's madness-proximity-posts to rot their brains. Amen.

Julian,
An ignorant-in-over-his-head-ditchdigger

Wow. Just when we thought he would gratefully stop at praising himself for his restraint, he lets go a last volley of insults.

Quote:

P.S. I will not reply to, or comment on, any more posts from anyone who posts material that is below the level of intellect required to comprehend 'My Pet Goat.' Naturally, the includes Nazaroo's posts.

Presumably, he will no longer post in this thread. We'll see if his restraint is real or imaginary once again.

jgibson000 · 03-15-2007, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazaroo

`Willker needs to start with an NxN data table to do the PCA calculations. I obviously am aware that he didn't start at the very beginning with an NxN table, since its one of my complaints that he dropped some data.

Have you sent -- or do you intend to send -- this to Wieland?

Or is this just another of your many instances of big talk<edit>?

JG

S.C.Carlson · 03-15-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Even better than that, actually, looking at the introduction to John in more detail. Swanson says that, (too much text to type in right now so I will summarize) f1 consists of 1, 118, and 1582 are read for this work. They are cited individually when they disagree. He also talks at some length regarding 1582*. For f13 he uses 13, 69, 124, 788, and 1346, again citing them individually when are in disagreement.

It would seem that he uses the group designation as shorthand for adding the weight of the group(s) to a reading but will cite individually when needed. In other words, no real use of these two as groups.

Yes. If 118 and 1582 disagree with 1, then Swanson even still put f1 for 1's reading and cite 118 and 1582 individually. Thus, for some variations the f1 and f13 could only be the reading of a single MS and it always includes the same MS.

(Interestingly, 1582 and 788 are closer to the family archetype than 1 and 13, respectively, and would have been better choices for the lead manuscript of the group.)

Stephen

Nazaroo · 03-15-2007, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Have you sent -- or do you intend to send -- this to Wieland?

Or is this just another of your many instances of big talk<edit>?

JG

Why are you going on about this? ...oh yes. You're the big 'chivalry' guy.

<edit>

Its off topic, and Willker BANNED Mr. Scrivener for a few minor criticisms. So that's a waste of time.

Let me think....oh yeah: Screw Willker. He can clean up his own mess. Why should I do his homework for him?

Nazaroo · 03-15-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Have you sent -- or do you intend to send -- this to Wieland?

Or is this just another of your many instances of big talk<edit>?

JG

Since you've made an accusation and a claim,

Can you provide a list please, of the 'many instances' and how they illustrate your thesis?

Apikorus · 03-17-2007, 09:43 AM

What happened with all the recent posts? Were they excised by a moderator?

Amaleq13 · 03-17-2007, 09:44 AM

The irrelevant tangent offering personal criticisms of others for failing to offer relevant posts has been split off and locked. If this thread doesn't get back to a discussion of the evidence, it will be locked as well.

Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Nazaroo · 03-17-2007, 09:47 AM

Back to the topic.

Lets examine the alleged Lukanisms of the Pericope de Adultera.

I will post a list shortly. We can begin with those culled by Cadbury in 1917.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2007, 09:43 AM	#228
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	What happened with all the recent posts? Were they excised by a moderator?

03-17-2007, 09:44 AM	#229
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	The irrelevant tangent offering personal criticisms of others for failing to offer relevant posts has been split off and locked. If this thread doesn't get back to a discussion of the evidence, it will be locked as well. Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

03-17-2007, 09:47 AM	#230
Nazaroo Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 528	Back to the topic. Lets examine the alleged Lukanisms of the Pericope de Adultera. I will post a list shortly. We can begin with those culled by Cadbury in 1917.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.