Actually, I wasn't even referring to Mr. Ulrich!
I was referring to the state of the art in
feminist analysis of "gender discrimination"
in university faculties.
I can, indeed, understand why the Landgrebian Mr. Ulrich would be
sensitive. He hasn't driven me anywhere. I'm still
calmly waiting for that statistical rationale he
is unable to provide...
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:10:48 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:04:19 -0800, Irving Scheffe (JS)
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, in practice, the decisions are seldom made
>> on the basis of rational evaluation of data. They
>> are usually made on the basis of political pressure,
>> with thin, and obviously invalid, pseudo-rationalizations
>> on the basis of data that, on close examination, have
>> little or no necessary relationship to the questions
>> being asked.
>
>Oh, I see. You do the opposite. Your own
>flabby rationalizations might be subtly valid,
>and, on close examination,
>*do* have some relationship to the questions....
>
>[ snip, one sentence of post, plus irrelevant citation. ]
>
>(This guy is already posting irrelevant rants as if
>I've driven him up the wall or something. So this
>is just another poke in the eye with a blunt stick, to see
>what he will swing at next....)
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
