On 14 Mar 2001 21:55:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Radford Neal)
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >(This guy is already posting irrelevant rants as if
> >I've driven him up the wall or something. So this
> >is just another poke in the eye with a blunt stick, to see
> >what he will swing at next....)
>
> I think we may take this as an admission by Mr. Ulrich that he is
> incapable of advancing any sensible argument in favour of his
> position. Certainly he's never made any sensible response to my
> criticism.
- In a new thread, I have now provided a response that is sensible,
or, at least, somewhat numeric.
I notice that Jim C. has taken up the cudgel, in trying to explain
the basics of t-tests to Jim S, and that "furthers my position."
I figure that after I state my position in one post, explicate it in
another, and try that again while refining the language -- then
I may as well call it quits with JS, when he still doesn't get the
points from the first (or from the couple of other people who
were posting them before I was).
I may not be saying it all that well, but I wasn't inventing the
position.
You and I are in agreement, now, on one minor conclusion:
"The t-test isn't good evidence about a difference in averages."
But for me, that's true because the numbers are crappy
indicators of performance -- which was clued *first* by the
distribution.
Whereas, you seem to have much more respect for crude
averages, compared to the several of us who object.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
