--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anony_sleuth_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > Uh-huh, *now* you interpret it that way.
I am sorry, that is how I have always interpreted it. If you find instances where believe I said otehr wise, simple cite them . > <snip> > > > > 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. > > No, you're just unable to back down from your > initial mistaken assumptions. You assumed at > first that the media had started the story of > the statistically significant anomalies, When did I EVER assume that. I asked for cites of your presumption that the trades were IN FACT outside normal patterns in a statistically significant way (Sigma 4 or 5 event) and you cited newspapers -- that did no such thing. >then > when you learned otherwise, >you tried to punt > and claim the investigations were to find out > *whether* there were statistically significant > anomalies, rather than to invest igate the > anomalies themselves and try to find out who > was responsible for them. Based on the above, I rest my case: 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. 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/
