You're still on this? WTF does this have to do with Rush?
Are you saying the studies on nicotine addiction in the 90's were useless to me because they didn't factor in my neighborhood? You really know how to fudge studies to suit your needs don't you. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Larry Lyons<[email protected]> wrote: > >>look up meta-analysis then ask your irrelevant question again. >> > > Still waiting for your response Sam. > > I'll give you an explanation, each study is a snapshot of the actual > relationship within the population. The results across studies randomly vary > around the population relationship because of sampling and measurement error. > In other words you get different results across studies. If you correct for > sampling and measurement error, you have a decent estimate of the > relationship within the population. If you want a more detailed explantion > (one which you probably won't understand without thinking - something you > don't like to attempt) try http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons/MetaAnalysis.htm > > So if you're willing to do a bit a work (which I doubt) you can use an online > application I wrote to do the analysis > http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons/metaAnalysis/index.cfm. > > So why don't you try a response that's a lot more relevant instead of your > petty meaningly red herrings. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:303617 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
