Dr. Chambers pointed out that I was sarcastic and childish and a bunch of other things. These are all true. He also accused me of sophistry, and if this happened, it was purely accidental. I don't even know what the word means.
Rather responding point by point, I'll spend the time working on finding more real data sets. But one comment is worth responding to. I wrote: >> Testing CR on a C-sample might be worthwhile, but we'd have to think >> of an experiment we could design that wouldn't cost a lot of money or >> take a lot of time. And Dr. Chambers replied: >Did they teach you in science to only pursue cheap and easy challenges? To which I can only say that you are welcome to spend lots of money and lots of time designing a C-sample and testing it. Present the results here when you do. I personally believe that I have already spent too much time on this. This may be a mistake, but I can only trust my gut feeling. All scientists pursue or reject areas of investigation based on their gut. I'll still muddle along and try a few simple things when I have time. CR is interesting and has some odd appeal to me. Perhaps it is the graphical nature that underlies many of the calculations. But I am not spending any serious time or money on this. My gut tells me otherwise. That may make me a sophist, I'm not really sure--where is my dictionary? Best of luck, Dr. Chambers. Steve Simon, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Standard Disclaimer. The STATS web page has moved to http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
