John H wrote in message . ..
On 3 Mar 2004 05:27:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"John H" wrote in message

None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?

He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown that
86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society. :-)

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

He may have used the

He may have used COCHRAN'S APPROXIMATION TO THE BEHRENS-FISHER
STUDENTS' T-TEST. This would probably be appropriate for answering
the question,b'asskisser. Read the following carefully, and notice
that all the available background data must be used. Please pay
particular attention to Subpart 3, b'asskisser. This is where you will
find the information on the necessary degrees of freedom.

Subpart 1. In general. Subpart 2 describes Cochran's
approximation to the Behrens-Fisher Students' t-test. Subpart 3
presents the standard t-tables at the 0.05 level of significance.

Subp. 2. Cochran's Approximation to the Behrens-Fisher
Students' t-test. Using all the available background data (nb
readings), calculate the background mean (XB) and background
variance (sB2). For the single monitoring well under
investigation (nm reading), calculate the monitoring mean (Xm)
and monitoring variance (sm2).

For any set of data (X1, X2, ... Xn) the mean is calculated
by:
X1 + X2 ... + Xn
-
X = ________________
n

and the variance is calculated by:
_ _ _
(X1 - X)2 + (X2 - X)2 ... + (Xn - X)2

s2 = ___________________________________
n-1

where "n" denotes the number of observations in the set of data.

The t-test uses these data summary measures to calculate a
t-statistic (t*) and a comparison t-statistic (tc). The t*
value is compared to the tc value and a conclusion reached as to
whether there has been a statistically significant change in any
indicator parameter.

The t-statistic for all parameters except pH and similar
monitoring parameters is:

If the value of this t-statistic is negative then there is
no significant difference between the monitoring data and
background data. It should be noted that significantly small
negative values may be indicative of a failure of the assumption
made for test validity or errors have been made in collecting
the background data.

The t-statistic (tc), against which t* will be compared,
necessitates finding tB and tm from standard (one-tailed) tables
where,

tB = t-tables with (nB-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
level of significance.

tm = t-tables with (nm-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
level of significance.

Finally, the special weightings WB and Wm are defined as:
sB2 sm2

WB = ___ and WM = ___

nB nm

and so the comparison t-statistic is:
WBtB + Wmtm

tc = ___________

WB + Wm

The t-statistic (t*) is now compared with the comparison
t-statistic (tc) using the following decision-rule:

If t* is equal to or larger than tc, then conclude that
there most likely has been a significant increase in this
specific parameter.

If t* is less than tc, then conclude that most likely there
has not been a change in this specific parameter.

The t-statistic for testing pH and similar monitoring
parameters is constructed in the same manner as previously
described except the negative sign (if any) is discarded and the
caveat concerning the negative value is ignored. The standard
(two-tailed) tables are used in the construction tc for pH and
similar monitoring parameters.

If t* is equal to or larger than tc then conclude that
there most likely has been a significant increase (if the
initial t* had been negative, this would imply a significant
decrease). If t* is less than tc, then conclude that there most
likely has been no change.

A further discussion of the test may be found in
Statistical Methods (Sixth Edition, section 4.14) by G.W.
Snedecor and W.G. Cochran, or Principles and Procedures of
Statistics (First Edition, section 5.8) by R.G.D. Steel and J.H.
Torrie.

Subp. 3. Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1.

Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1
t-values t-values
Degrees of Freedom (one-tail) (two-tail)

1 6.314 12.706
2 2.920 4.303
3 2.353 3.182
4 2.132 2.776
5 2.015 2.571
6 1.943 2.447
7 1.895 2.365
8 1.860 2.306
9 1.833 2.262
10 1.812 2.228
11 1.796 2.201
12 1.782 2.179
13 1.771 2.160
14 1.761 2.145
15 1.753 2.131
16 1.746 2.120
17 1.740 2.110
18 1.734 2.101
19 1.729 2.093
20 1.725 2.086
21 1.721 2.080
22 1.717 2.074
23 1.714 2.069
24 1.711 2.064
25 1.708 2.060
30 1.697 2.042
40 1.684 2.021

1Adopted from Table III of Statistical Tables for
Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research (1947, R.A.
Fisher and F. Yates).

STAT AUTH: MS s 116.07 subds 4,4b

HIST: 9 SR 115
Current as of 11/06/03
John H


Uh, hate to disappoint you, John, but as usual, you are talking out of
your ass again. I asked you to "please post the processes used to
obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed."
You come back with "he MAY have used". I didn't ask what he may have
used, I asked what he DID use. You may not understand this, from your
pasted post, I'd suspect not, but there are many, many statistical
processes that may have been used. NOW, I want to know what process
JOHN used to come up with that data, and the references. That is what
I asked for, was it not? Did you give me that information? NO

b'asskisser, do you always mean *exactly* what you say? Do you not,
sometimes, expect people to understand what you are *trying* to say
even though you aren't completely precise? Like, for example, if you
misspell a few words, or use them incorrectly, don't you expect people
to overlook that? Don't you expect that even when you are telling them
how *stupid* they are?

Perhaps I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.


Giving ME the benefit of doubt? Haahaaa!!! You have NO MORE CLUE about
statistical processes than the man in the moon, yet you TRIED to come
off here like you do! Now, WHY did you even bother to post Cochran's
approximation? I truly don't understand. Are you under the impression
that that was what was used? I'm really quite curious, here. Why DID
You post that particular analysis?

On 4 Mar 2004 06:20:31 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 3 Mar 2004 05:27:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"John H" wrote in message

None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
snipped
b'asskisser, do you always mean *exactly* what you say? Do you not,
sometimes, expect people to understand what you are *trying* to say
even though you aren't completely precise? Like, for example, if you
misspell a few words, or use them incorrectly, don't you expect people
to overlook that? Don't you expect that even when you are telling them
how *stupid* they are?

Perhaps I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.


Giving ME the benefit of doubt? Haahaaa!!! You have NO MORE CLUE about
statistical processes than the man in the moon, yet you TRIED to come
off here like you do! Now, WHY did you even bother to post Cochran's
approximation? I truly don't understand. Are you under the impression
that that was what was used? I'm really quite curious, here. Why DID
You post that particular analysis?

Purely, and I mean purely like in 100% pure, purely to get your
reaction.

I needed a chuckle on this damp Thursday morning.

Thank you!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.

John H wrote in message . ..
On 4 Mar 2004 06:20:31 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 3 Mar 2004 05:27:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"John H" wrote in message

None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
snipped
b'asskisser, do you always mean *exactly* what you say? Do you not,
sometimes, expect people to understand what you are *trying* to say
even though you aren't completely precise? Like, for example, if you
misspell a few words, or use them incorrectly, don't you expect people
to overlook that? Don't you expect that even when you are telling them
how *stupid* they are?

Perhaps I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.


Giving ME the benefit of doubt? Haahaaa!!! You have NO MORE CLUE about
statistical processes than the man in the moon, yet you TRIED to come
off here like you do! Now, WHY did you even bother to post Cochran's
approximation? I truly don't understand. Are you under the impression
that that was what was used? I'm really quite curious, here. Why DID
You post that particular analysis?

Purely, and I mean purely like in 100% pure, purely to get your
reaction.

I needed a chuckle on this damp Thursday morning.

Thank you!

No problem, I always try to react when someone tries to act like the
know something of a particular subject, and DO NOT.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.

Please post the analysis results.

On 4 Mar 2004 11:31:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.

Please post the analysis results.

Results: 86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have
required from three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin
society.

You must have missed these, b'asskisser.
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the analysis results.

Analysis results: as posted earlier: 86.7% of those who had read DH
Lawrence extensively required from three to five years of therapy in order
to rejoin society.

Methodology: methodology was formulated and research conducted at the
Tam-O-Shanter Lounge on Beacon Street in Boston, near Boston College, in the
spring of 1968 (dates are fuzzy). (actually, a great deal of that year
remains fuzzy -- but I digress.) Principal researchers were Norm Riggs,
Bob Wagner, and John Gaquin. Humility forced me to allow Norm and Bob to
claim naming rights.

Discussion centered around the major pita factor associated with the eng lit
class we were all attending at the time. Mr. Riggs tendered the opinion
that DH Lawrence sucked. Mr Wagner accepted Mr Riggs' analysis, and
reevaluated to arrive at a further conclusion; to wit, that DH Lawrence
sucked big-time. Mr Gaquin ordered additional Guinness for all
participants.

Messrs Riggs, Wagner, and Gaquin subsequently surveyed voluntary
participants at surrounding tables. Fifteen subjects participated freely in
the evaluation, without duress of any kind, although some claim that threats
were uttered. Thirteen of the fifteen subjects opined that both the course
and DH Lawrence were so f*&cked up that "...it would take years to f*#cking
recover...". Messrs Riggs, Wagner, and Gaquin estimated the three to five
year interpretive figure based on their extensive experience in the field.
Mr Wagner then ordered more Guinness for all survey participants, except for
the two babes who liked Lawrence. The thirteen respondents represent 86.7%
of the sample field. Responses from the remaining two subjects were
presumed to be universally supportive of Lawrence by the researchers, but
some assumptions were required on the part of the researchers, as the two
subjects in question departed the Tam-O-Shanter in some haste. Details are
cloudy, but the cause of the truncated survey process was either A) they
were being roundly denounced as a**holes by the anti-Lawrence faction, or B)
they were ****ed because someone spilled Guinness on them, and their nipples
were showing. Data at the time could not support a conclusion, so Mr Riggs
ordered additional Guinness for all participants.

Notwithstanding certain transient difficulties associated with the
evaluation, researchers feel that the data collection was reliable, and that
analysis results are valid.

Respectfully submitted, .... etc., etc.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:09:11 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the analysis results.

Analysis results: as posted earlier: 86.7% of those who had read DH
Lawrence extensively required from three to five years of therapy in order
to rejoin society.

Methodology: methodology was formulated and research conducted at the
Tam-O-Shanter Lounge on Beacon Street in Boston, near Boston College, in the
spring of 1968 (dates are fuzzy). (actually, a great deal of that year
remains fuzzy -- but I digress.) Principal researchers were Norm Riggs,
Bob Wagner, and John Gaquin. Humility forced me to allow Norm and Bob to
claim naming rights.

Discussion centered around the major pita factor associated with the eng lit
class we were all attending at the time. Mr. Riggs tendered the opinion
that DH Lawrence sucked. Mr Wagner accepted Mr Riggs' analysis, and
reevaluated to arrive at a further conclusion; to wit, that DH Lawrence
sucked big-time. Mr Gaquin ordered additional Guinness for all
participants.

Messrs Riggs, Wagner, and Gaquin subsequently surveyed voluntary
participants at surrounding tables. Fifteen subjects participated freely in
the evaluation, without duress of any kind, although some claim that threats
were uttered. Thirteen of the fifteen subjects opined that both the course
and DH Lawrence were so f*&cked up that "...it would take years to f*#cking
recover...". Messrs Riggs, Wagner, and Gaquin estimated the three to five
year interpretive figure based on their extensive experience in the field.
Mr Wagner then ordered more Guinness for all survey participants, except for
the two babes who liked Lawrence. The thirteen respondents represent 86.7%
of the sample field. Responses from the remaining two subjects were
presumed to be universally supportive of Lawrence by the researchers, but
some assumptions were required on the part of the researchers, as the two
subjects in question departed the Tam-O-Shanter in some haste. Details are
cloudy, but the cause of the truncated survey process was either A) they
were being roundly denounced as a**holes by the anti-Lawrence faction, or B)
they were ****ed because someone spilled Guinness on them, and their nipples
were showing. Data at the time could not support a conclusion, so Mr Riggs
ordered additional Guinness for all participants.

Notwithstanding certain transient difficulties associated with the
evaluation, researchers feel that the data collection was reliable, and that
analysis results are valid.

Respectfully submitted, .... etc., etc.


Let's see. Sample size=15, percent agreeing f*&cked up = 87%, should
be 95% confident that from 80% to 100% of the population agree.

Sounds like pretty damn sound statistics to me. 'Course my hearing is
impaired by too many tank and artillery rounds!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 18:09:11 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


Why are you commenting here, John? You've not read any D.H. *or* T.E.
Lawrence.