|
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:09:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote: Oh...for the idiots in the newsgroup (Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor Renegade), ol' D.H. was a writer of some repute. He died in 1930. Do you fellas think he was related to T.E. Lawrence? BTW, the Oxford Press recently released the definitive three volume set of T.E.'s Seven Pillars...but none of you have read it, right? Of course right. 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? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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. :-) |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:55:43 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
wrote: John H wrote: On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:09:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause" wrote: Oh...for the idiots in the newsgroup (Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor Renegade), ol' D.H. was a writer of some repute. He died in 1930. Do you fellas think he was related to T.E. Lawrence? BTW, the Oxford Press recently released the definitive three volume set of T.E.'s Seven Pillars...but none of you have read it, right? Of course right. 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? Certainly not you. I doubt the four of them - Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor - have read a quality book since the eighth grade, when they thought David Copperfield was being forced down their throats. The two Lawrences produced seminal works, both of which must be read if one is to have any understanding of today's world. I'm referring, of course, to the Seven Pillars of Wisdom and Lady Chatterley's Lover, both of which had and have impact far beyond their pages. You probably haven't read either book, either, or many other books, not for a long time, if ever. As I said.......... John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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. |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
|
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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 On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! For more insight into the process see: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...18307?v=glance and http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...lance&n=507846 Have a nice day! Mark Browne |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
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. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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. |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 00:02:01 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote: "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. A very appropriate statistical technique, if I may say so. The results of this technique are above reproach and have never been shown to have shortcomings. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
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? |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
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! |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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. |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
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. |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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. |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
|
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
"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. |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
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! |
Lawrence's Ship of Death...
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com