In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Most of the stuff being done are hyped-up hacks. They wouldn't dare publish > this junk lest someone with some knowledge tear it apart. ... The > mathematical/statistical validity of the technology > is really secondary at best." > > If they haven't published their work, how do you know that it is "secondary > at best"? Similarly, if they haven't published their work, how can they claim that their method is the best in the market? > Will Dwinnell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- T.S. Lim [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.Recursive-Partitioning.com _____________________________________________________________________ Get paid to write reviews! http://recursive-partitioning.epinions.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
