> > > >>http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html > > > > a series of anedotes congruent with commonly held beliefs. > > Um, no, not really "commonly". Unless you're talking about the sorts of > people who are concerned about such things.
it is common in the sense that america's love/hate relationship with walmart is in the popular press. > > even the author admits to bogus research: > > > > "... this story was reported in an unusual way ..." > > > > the excessive euphemistic nature of this admission is > > enough to make me write off the whole story as hype > > intended as advertising. > > Really? For what? advertising for fishbaum and fastcompany > "Unconventional" is not the same thing as "bogus". statistically irrelevent data is bogus, not unconventional > But by all means, > keep your salt lick handy -- no idea what you are saying > but the points made about the dangers of > chasing the cheapest price are valid nonetheless. show me the data. > > if the author will not describe > > in a forthright manner the use of non-standard methods, > > then it is not worth the bandwidth its conveyed on. > > Did you even _bother_ to read the article? of course i didn't !!! > I'm thinking not, because if you did, I'd wonder if you comprehended any > of it. whats your problem? why do you crap these personal remarks? > Or do you know of a journalistic investigative technique that would work > in the sort of punitive environment such as was described in the article? not everything is worthy of press. if your data does not afford statistically significance, its not worthy. given the title, i say the article is slander. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
