CG, why did you report my now deleted post in which I responded to your incorrect claim that "the mean doesn't have a distribution  it's just a number", and sent you links to sources on the sampling distribution of the sample mean? I doubt a mod or anyone else would have felt triggered by factual statistical knowledge. Then you repeated my point that the sample mean you observe is a particular realization from that distribution as if it had been based on your own knowledge, and something you had claimed all along, even though you were clearly unaware of that before my post correcting you. How incredibly dishonest of you. I shudder to think what's in the data that you didn't want to share, even when established scholars asked you to.
Let's define what the test statistic is

CG, why did you report my now deleted post in which I responded to your incorrect claim that "the mean doesn't have a distribution  it's just a number", and sent you links to sources on the sampling distribution of the sample mean? I doubt a mod or anyone else would have felt triggered by factual statistical knowledge. Then you repeated my point that the sample mean you observe is a particular realization from that distribution as if it had been based on your own knowledge, and something you had claimed all along, even though you were clearly unaware of that before my post correcting you. How incredibly dishonest of you. I shudder to think what's in the data that you didn't want to share, even when established scholars asked you to.
Didn't "report" a single post on this thread, you paranoid weirdo. And your description of the exchange is a complete lie. You're the one who laid out a hilarious howler where you claimed you can base a choice of tests on observing the sampling distribution and not the data (lol). I explained that was nonsense since you only observe one sample mean and made very clear that coefficients, means, and other stats have *theoretical* distributions. You can attempt to lie and gaslight all you want but you got embarrassed there again. Not the last time!

CG, it seems that no amount of explaining will help you understand basic stats, and every response you give is just handwaving and howlers. Why don't you stick to poasting about Trump's stroke recovery, and how stupid/evil/hilarious conservatives are?
Hahahahaha, I just quoted two stats textbooks with specifics on examples and then corrected in detail someone's egregious misunderstanding of one of them. But sure, let's pretend I'm not the one sourcing my claims and just handwaving. Whatever distracts from your searing mediocrity and embarrassment.

Still zero response despite extensive complaining, dodging, and lame insults (except for poor zubin, who fell on his face so badly I think I need plastic surgery):
I'm laying out a direct challenge: Find me a credible source (textbook, rigorous lecture notes, etc.) that clearly defines test statistics in a way that coefficients don't trivially qualify. Note I said *defined*, not a statement about common or desirable properties. I've now provided *three* sources supporting my claim. Three!
Every comment that ignores this challenge will be taken as an admission of defeat. Good luck.

Again, I have no clue why the lunkhead stats bros want to embarrass themselves like this. It's over. It's been over. I now have *three* separate stats textbooks proving me right beyond a shadow of a doubt. No response whatsoever except zubin, who got destroyed so badly I had to send flowers to his family. Just take the L, mooks. It's just awkward now.

That's three, count 'em three, stats textbooks! In every single one, the first example they give of a test statistic is a sample mean, which the poor stats bros have said repeatedly is impossible. Oops!
And it's immediately obvious that if this works for the sample mean, it works for a coefficient. Wasserman and C&B even give the exact parallel to the test I proposed for the coefficient months ago. This is over. I win. Again.

Is Morwen= la b to p? Seems obvious right?
Morwen is slightly smarter than l a b t o p, but equally deranged. Probably more dangerous, since she wants to teach wrong statistics to our future.
Note: Three people have time to write lame insults and warn that I'm "dangerous," but of course no response to anything. Not a peep. May as well just polish my crown and kneel if you're going to be this gracious in defeat.

By the way, where's Zubin with his apology for getting everything so badly wrong? I think I whupped him so bad earlier today I gave him internal bleeding. Can someone check on him?
Just a reminder: I've found and quoted from *three* major stats textbooks, all confirming that I'm right about test statistics. Crystal clear. It's incontrovertible. Victory for the good guys.

You consider yourself a "good guy," CG? You are misinterpreting your readings of the text.
Were these supposed to be connected thoughts or are you just rambling incoherently? Is there a point you wanted to make or were you hoping no one would notice this has zero content and again fails to respond to a simple challenge? I'm just trying to get in the mind of a representative peon who chooses to debase himself so badly.

Still zero response to this simple direct challenge despite extensive complaining, dodging, and lame insults:
Find me a credible source (textbook, rigorous lecture notes, etc.) that clearly defines test statistics in a way that coefficients don't trivially qualify. Note I said *defined*, not a statement about common or desirable properties. I've now provided *three* sources supporting my claim. Three!
Every comment that ignores this challenge will be taken as an admission of defeat. Good luck.

That's three, count 'em three, stats textbooks! In every single one, the first example they give of a test statistic is a sample mean, which the poor stats bros have said repeatedly is impossible. Oops!
And it's immediately obvious that if this works for the sample mean, it works for a coefficient. This is over. I win. Again.

Her parents wanted her to do econ, but her quant skills were too poor, and she couldn't get into econ PhD programs, so she went into polisci REP. Turned out her quant skills were too poor to meet even that low bar. She went deadwood and then moved into admin.
Imagine if CG taught statistics to future engineers. I wouldn't dare to hire any economist trained by her.

Three more whimpering nonresponses to my simple challenge, just so everyone understands how completely I've cowed and dominated these whiny stats bros! Provided three sources proving me right completely. None of the saddos have responded with anything. Case closed.
___________
Still zero response to this simple direct challenge despite extensive complaining, dodging, and lame insults:
Find me a credible source (textbook, rigorous lecture notes, etc.) that clearly defines test statistics in a way that coefficients don't trivially qualify. Note I said *defined*, not a statement about common or desirable properties. I've now provided *three* sources supporting my claim. Three!
Every comment that ignores this challenge will be taken as an admission of defeat. Good luck.