Statistics Rodent: "Do you still believe that correlashun (sic) implies cause and effect (sic)?"
This is funny from the outset--he pretends that I wrote "Do you still believe that correlashun (sic) implies cause and effect (sic)?", something I certainly have not done. The reality is that while I am a bad *typist*, Statistics Rodent really is a GENUINELY terrible speller. There actually is a strong correlation between a rodent's poor spelling abilities and the rodent harping on meaningless typos.
Then he goes on to put "sic" after the word "effect". Presumably he thinks the word should be "affect", but the reality is that "effect" is correct.
Now onto his pseudo-point. I did not claim that correlation ALWAYS implies causation He had claimed correlation NEVER implies cause and effect, and I explained that SOMETIMES it does. He really cannot understand the distinction between "not never" and "always", no matter how often it is explained to him.