Nate's popularity nowadays

[radiored]

See the way educated people use graphs is they look at the data, not at the pretty colours. The graphs show that at, at his peak, he is not trending as high as beiber (an actual superstar) was at his lowest point in the last 5 years.

LOL, the graph with Bieber in it doesn't have Conor, and just a tip for the future, when trying to insult people with "See the way educated people" check the spelling of the 'actual superstar' you are using to prove your point. If educated people didn't actually look at the lines on a graph (what you call the pretty colours) they would just use a table, graphs are there to show statistical information graphically.

 

[Turtlejuice]

LOL, the graph with Bieber in it doesn't have Conor, and just a tip for the future, when trying to insult people with "See the way educated people" check the spelling of the 'actual superstar' you are using to prove your point. If educated people didn't actually look at the lines on a graph (what you call the pretty colours) they would just use a table, graphs are there to show statistical information graphically.

You see, what you do, is you look at the data on the graph that shows Ronda and Conor, then you look at the graph that shows Ronda and Bieber and you can work out the difference between Conor and Bieber. Simples.

Congratulations, you just googled what graphs are for, now google how to use them.

 

[Breaking]

Conor made him rich and mainstream

I can't believe that you don't realize how retarded this sounds.

 

[jetstation]

Hes still not too likeable beating on people alot smaller than you isnt something to be looked up to or thought of as being cool. Would people think it was cool if Anderson beat on Connor? Both Diaz bros are as big as him yet fight in lower weight classes. I dunno maybe Im different than everyone else but a bully isnt cool.

 

[radiored]

You see, what you do, is you look at the data on the graph that shows Ronda and Conor, then you look at the graph that shows Ronda and Bieber and you can work out the difference between Conor and Bieber. Simples.

Can you quote the actually data then? I didn't see any statistics or numbers and the graphs were on different scales, oh I just get it, you don't know what data means, sorry about that. Just to be clear so you don't come back with some idiotic remark, the graphs displayed in this thread show a visual representation of the data but don't record the actual data anywhere on those graphs shown, plus I am only being so pedantic due to your 'educated people' comment.

On that you know the Bar Chart at the side is just averages since 2005, hardly a very good starting point for the comparisions. What those graphs did show however is when Nate beat Conor and his popularity spiked Conor's popularity actually spiked to nearly double that of Nate. In terms of MMA superstardom those graphs show Conor is still a 'superstar', now whether he deserves it is still up for debate and I won;t be defending that.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Let's see if he can maintain popularity after a loss. That is the real test. It's stupid as fuck to try and determine a guys true popularity immediately after a big win. That's just typical moron/front runner mentality.

 

[radiored]

Let's see if he can maintain popularity after a loss. That is the real test. It's stupid as fuck to try and determine a guys true popularity immediately after a big win. That's just typical moron/front runner mentality.

Unfortunately I think this is true, I like both the Diaz brothers but think Nate will drop in popularity again after a few more fights, I really felt sorry for him with the whole Conor and UFC 200 debacle

 

[Turtlejuice]

You see, what you do, is you look at the data on the graph that shows Ronda and Conor, then you look at the graph that shows Ronda and Bieber and you can work out the difference between Conor and Bieber. Simples.

Can you quote the actually data then? I didn't see any statistics or numbers and the graphs were on different scales, oh I just get it, you don't know what data means, sorry about that. Just to be clear so you don't come back with some idiotic remark, the graphs displayed in this thread show a visual representation of the data but don't record the actual data anywhere on those graphs shown, plus I am only being so pedantic due to your 'educated people' comment.

On that you know the Bar Chart at the side is just averages since 2005, hardly a very good starting point for the comparisions. What those graphs did show however is when Nate beat Conor and his popularity spiked Conor's popularity actually spiked to nearly double that of Nate. In terms of MMA superstardom those graphs show Conor is still a 'superstar', now whether he deserves it is still up for debate and I won;t be defending that.

Are you really that dumb? Go back to drawing dickbutt cartoons on your wall. You've got all the information you need t obe able to work out the relationship between Biebers popularity and Conors.

I'll give you a little hint. You look at the peaks for Ronda on both graphs, they represent the same figure.

 

[yeguiza]

MCGregor changed his bum life

in return, Nate changed MCG´s chin forever

 

[radiored]

Are you really that dumb? Go back to drawing dickbutt cartoons on your wall. You've got all the information you need t obe able to work out the relationship between Biebers popularity and Conors.

I was never arguing Bieber was less popular than Conor, your original comment said actual superstar and you assumed people would know you meant Bieber despite Bieber not even being compared on the same graph as Conor, that was a wild assumption. Most of the rest of my argument was deliberating pointing out holes in your continuing arguments because I felt like it and knew it would annoy you. You come across as very uneducated in this back and forth which I have no issue with, just you claimed to be educated. Dickbutt cartoons, lol.

To be honest I shouldn't have kept this going, winding up Conor fan boys with him not being up to Bieber level popularity is actually quite funny, I just don't think there is as many fan boys around here anymore.

 

[Turtlejuice]

I was never arguing Bieber was less popular than Conor, your original comment said actual superstar and you assumed people would know you meant Bieber despite Bieber not even being compared on the same graph as Conor, that was a wild assumption. Most of the rest of my argument was deliberating pointing out holes in your continuing arguments because I felt like it and knew it would annoy you. You come across as very uneducated in this back and forth which I have no issue with, just you claimed to be educated. Dickbutt cartoons, lol.

To be honest I shouldn't have kept this going, winding up Conor fan boys with him not being up to Bieber level popularity is actually quite funny, I just don't think there is as many fan boys around here anymore.

All you've proven is that you don't know how to use graphical data. Like I said, all the data you need to make a comparison is there. It doesn't need to be on the same graph. People can read the graphs and workout who the superstar is, not everyone needs spoonfeeding. You haven't pointed out holes, you've pointed out that you struggle with comparing 2 different graphs to work out the relationships between the data they represent. Now you've realised you were being dumb and are trying to claw your way out of it.

Maybe you're not dumb, maybe you are actually quite intelligent. No shame in admitting you don't understand how to use graphs.

And I think you underestimate the fanboys. As soon as he wins his next fight they'll be back, eating his manure.

 

[radiored]

Maybe you're not dumb, maybe you are actually quite intelligent. No shame in admitting you don't understand how to use graphs.

And I think you underestimate the fanboys. As soon as he wins his next fight they'll be back, eating his manure.

You just ignore the mistakes I point out then act like I don't know graphs, lol. You mentioned data yet no data is actually listed on these graphs, only visually represented, also there is no such thing as graphical data, there is only graphical representations of data, which I am perfectly adept at using and analysing thank you. You assumed people would know you meant Bieber despite him being on a separate graph, so it was a wide assumption. Please lets stop the back on forth, if you want we can go on the Big Bang Theory fan forum and debate statistics with Jim Parsons

You are right, the Fanboys will be back, but may be best leaving your best Bieber Conor comparisons to then. You obviously have it bad for Bieber, thankfully I am so good at filtering out pop culture I dislike I barely know who he is

 

[Turtlejuice]

You just ignore the mistakes I point out then act like I don't know graphs, lol. You mentioned data yet no data is actually listed on these graphs, only visually represented, also there is no such thing as graphical data, there is only graphical representations of data, which I am perfectly adept at using and analysing thank you. You assumed people would know you meant Bieber despite him being on a separate graph, so it was a wide assumption. Please lets stop the back on forth, if you want we can go on the Big Bang Theory fan forum and debate statistics with Jim Parsons

You are right, the Fanboys will be back, but may be best leaving your best Bieber Conor comparisons to then. You obviously have it bad for Bieber, thankfully I am so good at filtering out pop culture I dislike I barely know who he is

Says the man who thinks spelling Bieber correctly is an indicator of superiority. It can't be that you're concerned with actual spelling when you say things like

Can you quote the actually data then?

Enough with the bullshit. But yes, you're right, I could have said datum instead of data, but then since you're concerned that everyone else reading this is a simpleton (not you of course, you're graphtastic) and can't get to grips with using 2 different graphs with different scales, I think using datum would probably blow some gaskets.

 

[radiored]

Says the man who thinks spelling Bieber correctly is an indicator of superiority. It can't be that you're concerned with actual spelling when you say things like

I admit I was being pedantic and dickish in my replies and the big bang comment was making fun of both our comments, not just yours.

Enough with the bullshit. But yes, you're right, I could have said datum instead of data, but then since you're concerned that everyone else reading this is a simpleton (not you of course, you're graphtastic) and can't get to grips with using 2 different graphs with different scales, I think using datum would probably blow some gaskets.

Datum is just the singular for data, my point was there was no actual values listed just a graphical representation of the data, but then that was off the real topic which was I never thought Conor was more popular than Bieber I was arguing about your assumption people would know what you meant by 'actual superstar' since they weren't on the same graph, but again I admit I took it too far, Bieber being more popular than Conor is kinda funny if Fan Boys will bite.

 

[Turtlejuice]

I admit I was being pedantic and dickish in my replies and the big bang comment was making fun of both our comments, not just yours.




Datum is just the singular for data, my point was there was no actual values listed just a graphical representation of the data, but then that was off the real topic which was I never thought Conor was more popular than Bieber I was arguing about your assumption people would know what you meant by 'actual superstar' since they weren't on the same graph, but again I admit I took it too far, Bieber being more popular than Conor is kinda funny if Fan Boys will bite.

Datum literally means something given, the modern use being "a piece of information". Data also doesn't have to be given, you can work out the relationships of the subjects on a graph or series of graphs without any. I know what your point was. I also know what you were doing, but it was redundant considering the post immediately after mine, which was the person I had replied to, understood what I was talking about.

 

[wtkace**]

Looks like it's real, this time: