Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Radiation So Destructive, Not Even Robots Can Survive

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

I was explaining how to analyze the odds of the correlation between three words and how difficult it would be to succeed at guessing the right words by pure chance.

I believe you said the odds were "astronomical." Please show your work.

I did for a few pages now.

I gave enough information and articulated enough explanation to sufficiently show enough work to make the case.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I did for a few pages now.

No you didn't.
You arm waved. Statistics isn't arm waving. Is it? Have you taken a class in statistics?

originally posted by: Phage
I didn't want to. I had to because it was brought up.

No one forced you to argue about anything.

Your ego compelled it because it's validity contradicts your dogmatic religious belief system of pseudoscience.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I have no religion.

Wow!

...and then there was Fukishima.

Yeah, that thing.

Reminder~~~~

This is the TOPIC:

Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Radiation So Destructive, Not Even Robots Can SurviveText

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
Reminder~~~~

This is the TOPIC:

Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Radiation So Destructive, Not Even Robots Can SurviveText

and, as always:
Do NOT reply to this post!!

Thanks. I guess I'm enjoying the back and fourth between these two too much.