> Larry wrote: > What proof Dana. Lets see you're condemning the man just because he > seems to fit some vague profile that has no predictability.
Well, let's put some numbers to it. Let's use a scale from 0 to 10 with 10 being 100% certain he's guilty and 0% being certain he's innocent. In a court of law, 90% is considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now let's look at the facts: 1.) Given the odd circumstances surrounding her collapse, and the probability of the spouse being responsible for these oddities, I think we'd have to move him from 0 to 2. 2.) Next there's the profile and the unsubstantiated rumors. I'll be generous and say that those get us from 2 to 4. Ok, let's also assume that a "3" is necesary for an inquiry and a "5" for an investigation. Mr. Schiavo is now a generous (to Dana) "4", i.e. not worth of an investigation. However one was undertaken anyway and came back negative. That moves him back down to a generous 2. Dana seems to be saying that her analysis, combinded with her experience and intuition, is sufficient to move him from a 2 to a 7 or 8. We are saying that, at most, the intuition is worth a point. So the question for Dana is, how do you justify a 5 point move in light of so little evidence? Intuition is a sufficient answer, but the answer is so far unclear. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:163862 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
