--- 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. 
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:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to