begin quoting m ike as of Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:50:10PM -0700: > > > > >>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.
And what the "popular press" writes about has something to do with
commonly held beliefs?
Hm.
I suppose I'm self-excluded here anyway, as I don't follow 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
I must live in a vastly different world.
> > "Unconventional" is not the same thing as "bogus".
>
> statistically irrelevent data is bogus, not unconventional
Appeal to statistics? That's a far more significant marker for bogus
arguments than unconventional mechanisms for acquiring data, where
"unconventional" here means "talking to people who no longer are at risk
of losing their jobs just for talking to you".
> > But by all means,
> > keep your salt lick handy --
>
> no idea what you are saying
Are you not familiar with the idiom of taking something with a grain of
salt?
And if so, have you never seen a "salt lick"?
(Maybe it's a rural thing.)
> > but the points made about the dangers of
> > chasing the cheapest price are valid nonetheless.
>
> show me the data.
Read the article.
Refute what was written. Is it invalid to question people who no
longer work for an organization?
(There are several points in the article that could be disputed, but
on the whole, it's more balanced than what I'd expect it to be. Even
if we agree that it's flawed, it raised important questions and issues.)
[snip]
> > Did you even _bother_ to read the article?
>
> of course i didn't !!!
A true slashdotter, I see! ;-P
> > 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?
You are using 'crap' in a way that does not make a lot of sense. Was
a word or two left out? Are you trying to avoid saxon words? Is this
just a local or family idiom? Nevermind, I digress.
Mostly, I'm just objecting to the way you're pissing all over the place
as if you'd expect us to be impressed with your clever use of buzzwords.
A couple of paragraphs about how this sort of thing _should_ be investigated
(given the constraints under which the journalist was working) would have
been welcome. Thus, my next comment:
> > 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.
True. But the effects of the exercise of power is perhaps the most
worthy subject of the press. The most interesting point of the article,
I thought, had to do with how you go about finding out about a system
where the participants do not discuss the system.
("First rule of Fight Club: you do not talk about Fight Club.")
> if your data does not afford statistically
> significance, its not worthy. given the title, i say the article is slander.
It is not wise to worship at the altar of statistics. It is a fickle
and tricksterish sort of deity. Remember, "lies, damn lies, and statistics".
And it's not slander. Not at all. Not one little bit. No matter how much
supposed stastical irrelevence may or may not be involved.
-Stewart "Yes, that's a trick point. Underhanded, even. Do you see it?" Stremler
pgpOzf43OdHUv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
