From: nigel on 25 Jan 2010 17:05
> On 25/01/2010 9:32 PM, nigel wrote:
>> JC wrote:
>>> This was a scientific study right?
>> Dunno, you snipped the science bit.
> No, no I didn't. There was none.
Take off the dark glasses - science isn't dangerous, it's fun.
From: Joe Horowitz on 25 Jan 2010 21:31
"JC" <uksf_x(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> On 25/01/2010 6:26 PM, Joe Horowitz wrote:
>> Well, we'd have to arrive at a workable definition of 'fluke' first. I'm
>> not convinced we have yet.
> Hmmm, as I understand it a fluke is an accidental occurence/stroke of luck
> so by definition intending to do something and achieving it , however
> improbable, cannot be a fluke as it is not accidental. Walking away from a
> basketball hoop, tossing the ball backwards over your shoulder, it hitting
> a passing crow and going into the basket would be a fluke - you couldn't
> realistically replicate it. Facing the basket and trying to get it in from
> the centre spot and doing it 1 time in 10 wouldn't be a fluke in my
> opinion as there is intention to do it and it could be replicated - its
> just difficult.
AWTWP. Therefore Figueroa's goal, and more importantly, my basketball shot
against my next door neighbour when I was twelve, were not flukes.
Thank-you for clearing this up for us. Whoever knew that the Son of God
would have such a keen grasp of statistics?
> If something being less than 100% likely makes it a fluke then every goal
> must be a fluke as the are always less goals than attempts on target.
Except in snooker, in which there are slightly more pots than misses.
"I am the fat puddin', but a single puddingness" - Vicky Conlan
From: nigel on 26 Jan 2010 05:18
Joe Horowitz wrote:
>>If something being less than 100% likely makes it a fluke then every goal
>>must be a fluke as the are always less goals than attempts on target.
> Except in snooker, in which there are slightly more pots than misses.
Not the way I play it :(