On 20 Oct 2008, at 02:05, Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> Or, and this is my preference, just drop it. You are completely
> wrong; the
> numbers don't lie.
Of course you prefer not be shown to be wrong. I think it's ver
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2008, at 22:48, Nick Arnett wrote:
> > During the weeks following my post, we had abnormally high activity
> > -- more
> > than two standard deviations from the mean. One of those weeks, we
> > were at
> >
On 19 Oct 2008, at 22:48, Nick Arnett wrote:
> During the weeks following my post, we had abnormally high activity
> -- more
> than two standard deviations from the mean. One of those weeks, we
> were at
> more than five standard deviations above the mean.
Obviously controversy always causes
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Indicating that my fears that Nick's threats of censorship would
> discourage posting were fully justified.
There's a lot I'd LIKE to say in response, but I'll just let the cold, hard
facts -- the numbers -- tell
