On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:15:25 +0200, Robert Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ snip, some of mine, and his comments]
> ... My main point was and
> still is that the Slate author used RTM in a sloppy way. That's
> what I meant by "cavalier."
I never read the Slate article until today. I think I said
at the start, that I was (essentially) tickled pink that anybody
would write something about RTM for public consumption.
Having read it, I can say that I didn't find him "cavalier."
However much he was right about the expectations for BB,
and it is true that RTM accounts for some placebo effect,
I'm afraid that
I think that
it happens that
he was wrong about the particular article on Placebo-effect --
if that is the one that we discussed a few months ago.
- see my other response today on this thread
(which I intend to write, immediately).
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
