On 6/4/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > > > >
good luck -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
