--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > One more time: The press didn't make up the idea that > > > there were anomalies. The press reported that financial > > > institutions all over the world thought there were > > > anomalies significant enough to investigate. > > > > Yes. There was speculation based on initial viewing of the data, > > towarrantan investigation. And what were the results of the > > investigations? I have seen nothing other than the 9/11 Commission. > > Have you? If so, please cite. I assume nothing was reported on the > > conclusions of the investigations was because no conclusive > > statistically significant anomolies were found. > > The investigations were *of* the statistically > significant anomalies. The anomalies were a given. > That's why there were investigations. > > No *explanations* for the anomalies, to my knowledge, > have been reported. > > > The 9/11 Commission said nothing conclusive was found. > > No, you made that up. The 9/11 commission (sixth time > now) said there were "innocuous explanations" for the > anomalies.
I am missing your point. True, I interpret "innocuous explanations" as non-conclusive in finding any trading that could not be explained as normal business. "Innocuous" producing no injury : HARMLESS 2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : INOFFENSIVE > > So what investigation produced a > > conclusion that conclusive statistically significant anomolies > > occurred? > > The investigations were based on the *fact* that > there were statistically significant anomalies. That's > what they were investigating, you see, the statistically > significant anomalies. If there were no statistically > significant anomalies, there'd have been nothing to > investigate. You apparently have no idea what statistical significance refers to. There are such huge semantic gaps here, further discussion I can only assume will be unproductive. > <duh> > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/