--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > Even overlooking the fact that certain kinds of > > > anomalies are, indeed, statistically insignificant > > > (as the TM researcher new morning cited who was > > > defending the study pointed out, > > > > I was not defending, nor attacking the study as a > > whole. I was raising some concerns in the rubuttal > > points raised by Rainforth. > > I don't think I suggested you were either defending > or attacking the study, did I? >
Sorry, i read it a different way first time areound. I now get what you were intending to say. > In the first place, I don't believe they *did* > exclude the murder spike. But in the second place, > the spike was so small in terms of the overall > violent crime numbers, it wouldn't have affected > the overall results to any substantial degree, > would it? Maybe a fraction of a percentage, I'd > guess, no? Yes, in the study as is. But not if the murders were analyzed separatly whcih they should have been,IMO.
