--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > And the comment, "this is precisely the type of sporadic fluctuation > > > one must account for when total numbers are small." Exlusion is a > > > major way of "account[ing] for" such outliers. > > > > > > It was NOT excluded from the data. The weekly AVERAGE was the > > weekly average with no data excluded. The SIGNIFICANCE of the > > outlier was dismissed because it was only one data point > > amongst many and wasn't repeated and in fact was reversed > > the next week (20 one week and 4 the next). > > See footnote 3. > > 3. After removing the outlier of June 22, Poisson regression > analysis indicated there was no significant difference in the > level of homicides in June and July 1993 from the remainder of > the year. > > This implies that WITH the outlier included, there WAS a significant > difference [higher] in the level of homicides in June and July 1993 > from the remainder of the year.
I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise. This was a separate analysis, BTW. It doesn't contradict what Lawson is saying. > And at best, the ME had no effect on murders. At worst, it > increases them -- assuming ME is causal. So it would appear, > ME is "crime-stopper light". Works best, thjough modestly, on > lighter-weight crimes I guess. And even then, its not a huge > decrease. Gee whiz, it's a substantial decrease. Any police department that could bring about that big a reduction would be elevated to hero status. And again, the business with murders is all openly discussed in the study.
