From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 12/10/25 08:26, Tom Elam wrote:   
   > On 12/9/2025 9:41 AM, -hh wrote:   
   >>> I never deceived anybody. Everything I posted on this topic is true,   
   >>> but incomplete.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> You've already admitted in this thread that you've deliberately   
   >> "baited" with your selective cherry-picking.  That's deliberate   
   >> deception.   
   >>   
   >   
   > LOL, it was all true.   
      
   That it is true is what "selective cherry-picking" means.   
      
   > This started out with your criticism of my regression model.   
      
   Nah, your manipulation of data behavior started years & years ago.   
      
   For your latest on your electrical consumption vs one appliance in your   
   house, as I said a month ago which you've never disputed was:   
      
   "It is clear that you've merely dabbled with the data that was the   
   easiest for you to collect and are making excuses for everything else."   
      
   and:   
      
   "...your 'results' speaking was evident in the first graph you provide:   
   it had quite a bit of scatter from factors you weren't bothering to   
   control for.  Since you've not improved the dataset, all you've done is   
   to massage the existing datapoints into masking all of that variance."   
      
   That was your free roadmap for improving your work; if you need more   
   hand-holding, that's where I drew the line - - and because you're a   
   welshing risk, it is just like Trump:  "payable in advance".   
      
      
   >>> Even if I did show it all you would claim it is falsified. Can't win,   
   >>> can I?   
   >   
   > So next you deflect with the answer below. The person who would never   
   > admit that scuba and snorkel both have to involve diving would never   
   > admit that anything I showed in this context is accurate.   
      
      
   No, you were shown to be wrong, which is why you lashed out with your   
   "...30 minute dive with 15 minutes of air." death wish insult attempt.   
      
      
   >> One succeeds by knowing better:  not bragging about their income, net   
   >> worth, car they drive, trophy house(s), etc.   
   >   
   > My income and net worth details are not known to anyone outside my wife,   
   > a lawyer and a broker/investment advisor. You are the only person on   
   > this planet who has ever even inquired.   
      
      
   Inquired?  Nope.   
   Called you out on the holes in your lame brag attempts?  Yup!   
      
      
   > You are the one who, when informed I bought a Subaru said it   
   > could have been a Porsche.   
      
   For YOLO applies, and based on what you've said/done, you've barely   
   increased your travel budget.  Plus you're ignoring how you tried to   
   brag about being wealthy enough to write a check to buy a Cessna.   
   Tiny Tim hopes that you learn something during the holidays, Scrooge /s   
      
   > You are   
   > the one who labeled my house as a tract home, now it's a trophy home.   
   > Tract home is correct. Nothing special in a part of Carmel full of $1+   
   > million mansions. Compared to Alan's 500 sq ft Vancouver condo you might   
   > be right, but in this area!   
      
   If it really is so humble, then you wouldn't be trying to compare   
   yourself to an urban condo...right?  /s   
      
   > Hypocrite!   
      
   False, because once again you're only trying to elevate yourself by   
   pushing others down, and it hasn't been only Alan you've tried this on:   
      
   July 11, 2017 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:   
   [quote]   
   If I had to live in your tiny house and in small town NJ I'd be   
   more likely to look for cheap international tickets and travel too!   
   [/quote]   
      
      
      
      
   Your constant need to somehow prove yourself - is all of your own doing.   
      
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)