[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Paul,
>
> You are demonstrating exactly why I remind everyone that we are after the
> truth. You say nothing has been found that supports the validity of CR.
> This is absolute nonesense. People have several times used invalid tests
> and jumped to conclusions, but those who bother to do the simulations
> properly end up admitting that CR works. Gus is an example of this. He
> SEES that when we start with uniform samples, we do get the results that CR
> produces.
Thank you for doing my thinking for me. Not!
I did not "admit that CR works". I told you this in another message.
I am still trying to figure out what is going on and have reserved judgement.
I do see that uniform samples exhibit the correlation patterns you predicted.
What to make of that, I do not yet know.
> Gottfried sees it as well, as have most others who bothered to do
> the simulations. Gus's recent arguments have been based on an attempt to
> create uniform distributions but his understanding failed to appreciate why
> uniform distributions were needed and why trimming was logical. Gus used
> the word 'loaded" and that word is what prompted me to bring up the issue of
> honesty. The word loaded usually means there is some hidden meaning
> involved. There is nothing hidden in what I say.
Yes, there is. You are twisting my words to fit your agenda.
.
.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at:
. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ .
=================================================================
