Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmmm. Must have been more than a few years back, Sandy. ...
Late 70s, as I recall.
> I think you've been depending on urban legend rather than real data.
No, I'm recalling reading a CR publication. Long enough ago that
the recall is hazy, and it is possible I misread it in the first place.
But I clearly recall the shock and amusement.
> I've been a CR subscriber for close to 40 years. They're far from
> perfect
We agree there.
> but there's nothing else that even comes close for product
> function and reliability data.
Yes, they are the only ones I know of trying to do something
that is basically important and worthwhile.
However, as a previous post said, their methods are quite
dubious by the standard statistical criteria for research and,
as I think my example showed, sometimes they get it
quite wrong.
So take them with a grain of salt.
--
Sandy Harris
Quanzhou, Fujian, China
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|