[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logically, you'd expect many people to move to the neighboring towns, but others to move across the state, and some just moving across the country. Well you can't measure the ones who moved far far away, but you could use the ones in the neighboring towns who are complaining as evidence that the mayor is driving people out, if there are enough of them or if there are particulars about their situation that make you think it's a trend.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you can't. You can use those people as proof that some people are moving laterally. That is it.

By your logic ("if there are enough of them"), the more people that move laterally (to neighbouring towns) and are vocal about it, the more likely Bluffthis' hypothesis is true. So the more people that bitch in bbv4l about how much NT sucks, the more likely that people are NOT moving to bbv4l because of NT (moving far far away). That makes no sense.

My point is that people are moving laterally because of NT which I showed by people moving laterally (through Sniper's graphs and the hordes of people from OOT in bbv4l now).

Bluffthis' point is that people are leaving 2p2 because of NT by showing people moving laterally.

Which one makes more sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of you can prove a point without making assumptions about the model. Both of you can prove your point with those assumptions. Neither of you can prove your model.

His model assumes that for every 1 that moves to a neighboring forum, X will scatter to somewhere else on the Internet, and X is large. He can't offer proof of this model directly, but he can kind of argue, "this guy is complaining and bbb4l and you can imagine some guy just like him only not an internet addict, or who hasn't been on twoplustwo as long, etc"

Your point about lateral movement is compelling if you have charts and graphs but you can't prove it without knowing what is coming into the system.

[ QUOTE ]

Which one makes more sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your model is easier to imagine than his.