[ note, Jay: HTML-formatting makes this hard to read ]
On 11 May 2001 00:30:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Warner) wrote:
[snip, HTML header]
> I've had occasion to talk with a number of educator types lately, at different
> application and responsibility levels of primary & secondary Ed.
>
I've had occasion to talk with a number of educator types lately, at different
application and responsibility levels of primary & secondary Ed.
Only one recalled the term, regression toward the mean. Some (granted,
the less analytically minded) vehemently denied that such could be causing
the r
>Subject: Re: (none)
>From: Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 5/10/2001 5:15 PM Eastern
CH: " Why do articles appear in print when study methods, analyses,
>results, and conclusions are somewhat faulty?"
>
> - I suspect it might be a consequence of "S
- selecting from CH's article, and re-formatting. I don't know if
I am agreeing, disagreeing, or just rambling on.
On 4 May 2001 10:15:23 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Huberty)
wrote:
CH: " Why do articles appear in print when study methods, analyses,
results, and conclusions are somewhat
Donald Burrill writes:
>Thanks, Rich. My semi-automatic crap detector hits DELETE when it sees
>things like this anyway; but... did you notice that although SamFaz
>(or whoever, really) claims to cite a bill passed by the U.S. Congress
>he she or it is actually writing from Canada?
>
Thanks, Rich. My semi-automatic crap detector hits DELETE when it sees
things like this anyway; but... did you notice that although SamFaz
(or whoever, really) claims to cite a bill passed by the U.S. Congress
he she or it is actually writing from Canada?
I'm not quite sure what to m
On 1 May 2001 16:14:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SamFaz Consulting)
wrote:
>
Under the Bill s. 1618 title III passed by the 105th US congress
this letter cannot be considered SPAM as long as the sender includes
contact info
