do you still say that in 1994 it was a true statement that there was no proof cigarette were addicitive? ;)
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:303643 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
