I don't read or respond to your dumb obsessions with the null hypothesis, because the null hypothesis is both boring to discuss and you were using it wrong.Is that why I had to explain it to you to try to prove to you I am smart?

Who the fuck runs around blabbing constantly about the null hypothesis?

If you used it correctly you would be an agnostic, because from the POV of experimental science there is always a measurable probability the null hypothesis will be rejected, and the alternative hypothesis affirmed. Otherwise, nobody would do science.

If I have never mentioned Martin Van Buren or Willie Mays on this board before, does that mean I don't know about them?