Lawrence's Ship of Death...

John H wrote:

 > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:09:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
 > <etaoin_shrdlu-no-spam.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  > >Oh...for the idiots in the newsgroup (Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor
  > >Renegade), ol' D.H. was a writer of some repute. He died in 1930. Do you
  > >fellas think he was related to T.E. Lawrence? BTW, the Oxford Press
  > >recently released the definitive three volume set of T.E.'s Seven
  > >Pillars...but none of you have read it, right?
  > >
  > >Of course right.
  > >
 >
 > None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
 > with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
 > integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?



Certainly not you.

I doubt the four of them - Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor - have read a
quality book since the eighth grade, when they thought David Copperfield
was being forced down their throats.

The two Lawrences produced seminal works, both of which must be read if
one is to have any understanding of today's world. I'm referring, of
course, to the Seven Pillars of Wisdom and Lady Chatterley's Lover, both
of which had and have impact far beyond their pages.

You probably haven't read either book, either, or many other books, not
for a long time, if ever.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

"John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
 >
 > None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
 > with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
 > integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?

He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown that
86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society. <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

"John Gaquin" <john.gaquin.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<2NGdnVDl_8dpM9nd4p2dnA.DeleteThis@comcast.com>...
 > "John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
  > >
  > > None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
  > > with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
  > > integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
 >
 > He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
 > sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown that
 > 86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
 > three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society.

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:55:43 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
<etaoin_shrdlu-no-spam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

 >John H wrote:
 >
  >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:09:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
  >> <etaoin_shrdlu-no-spam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >> >Oh...for the idiots in the newsgroup (Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor
   >> >Renegade), ol' D.H. was a writer of some repute. He died in 1930. Do you
   >> >fellas think he was related to T.E. Lawrence? BTW, the Oxford Press
   >> >recently released the definitive three volume set of T.E.'s Seven
   >> >Pillars...but none of you have read it, right?
   >> >
   >> >Of course right.
   >> >
  >>
  >> None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
  >> with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
  >> integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
 >
 >
 >
 >Certainly not you.
 >
 >I doubt the four of them - Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor - have read a
 >quality book since the eighth grade, when they thought David Copperfield
 >was being forced down their throats.
 >
 >The two Lawrences produced seminal works, both of which must be read if
 >one is to have any understanding of today's world. I'm referring, of
 >course, to the Seven Pillars of Wisdom and Lady Chatterley's Lover, both
 >of which had and have impact far beyond their pages.
 >
 >You probably haven't read either book, either, or many other books, not
 >for a long time, if ever.
 >
 >
 >
As I said..........

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:32:34 -0500, John H <jherring$$@$$cox**.net>
wrote:

 >On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:09:45 -0500 (EST), "Harry Krause"
 ><etaoin_shrdlu-no-spam.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Oh...for the idiots in the newsgroup (Wally, Tuuk, Jim--, Backdoor
  >>Renegade), ol' D.H. was a writer of some repute. He died in 1930. Do you
  >>fellas think he was related to T.E. Lawrence? BTW, the Oxford Press
  >>recently released the definitive three volume set of T.E.'s Seven
  >>Pillars...but none of you have read it, right?
  >>
  >>Of course right.
  >>
 >
 >None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
 >with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
 >integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
 >
 >John H
 >
 >On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
 >on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

We dumb. Harry smart.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, atl_man2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:

 >"John Gaquin" <john.gaquin DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message news:<2NGdnVDl_8dpM9nd4p2dnA DeleteThis @comcast.com>...
  >> "John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
   >> >
   >> > None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
   >> > with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
   >> > integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
  >>
  >> He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
  >> sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown that
  >> 86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
  >> three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society.
 >
 >Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
 >as well as exactly what type of research performed.

He may have used the

He may have used COCHRAN'S APPROXIMATION TO THE BEHRENS-FISHER
STUDENTS' T-TEST. This would probably be appropriate for answering
the question,b'asskisser. Read the following carefully, and notice
that all the available background data must be used. Please pay
particular attention to Subpart 3, b'asskisser. This is where you will
find the information on the necessary degrees of freedom.

Subpart 1. In general. Subpart 2 describes Cochran's
approximation to the Behrens-Fisher Students' t-test. Subpart 3
presents the standard t-tables at the 0.05 level of significance.

Subp. 2. Cochran's Approximation to the Behrens-Fisher
Students' t-test. Using all the available background data (nb
readings), calculate the background mean (XB) and background
variance (sB2). For the single monitoring well under
investigation (nm reading), calculate the monitoring mean (Xm)
and monitoring variance (sm2).

For any set of data (X1, X2, ... Xn) the mean is calculated
by:
X1 + X2 ... + Xn
-
X = ________________
n

and the variance is calculated by:
_ _ _
(X1 - X)2 + (X2 - X)2 ... + (Xn - X)2

s2 = ___________________________________
n-1

where "n" denotes the number of observations in the set of data.

The t-test uses these data summary measures to calculate a
t-statistic (t*) and a comparison t-statistic (tc). The t*
value is compared to the tc value and a conclusion reached as to
whether there has been a statistically significant change in any
indicator parameter.

The t-statistic for all parameters except pH and similar
monitoring parameters is:

If the value of this t-statistic is negative then there is
no significant difference between the monitoring data and
background data. It should be noted that significantly small
negative values may be indicative of a failure of the assumption
made for test validity or errors have been made in collecting
the background data.

The t-statistic (tc), against which t* will be compared,
necessitates finding tB and tm from standard (one-tailed) tables
where,

tB = t-tables with (nB-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
level of significance.

tm = t-tables with (nm-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
level of significance.

Finally, the special weightings WB and Wm are defined as:
sB2 sm2

WB = ___ and WM = ___

nB nm

and so the comparison t-statistic is:
WBtB + Wmtm

tc = ___________

WB + Wm

The t-statistic (t*) is now compared with the comparison
t-statistic (tc) using the following decision-rule:

If t* is equal to or larger than tc, then conclude that
there most likely has been a significant increase in this
specific parameter.

If t* is less than tc, then conclude that most likely there
has not been a change in this specific parameter.

The t-statistic for testing pH and similar monitoring
parameters is constructed in the same manner as previously
described except the negative sign (if any) is discarded and the
caveat concerning the negative value is ignored. The standard
(two-tailed) tables are used in the construction tc for pH and
similar monitoring parameters.

If t* is equal to or larger than tc then conclude that
there most likely has been a significant increase (if the
initial t* had been negative, this would imply a significant
decrease). If t* is less than tc, then conclude that there most
likely has been no change.

A further discussion of the test may be found in
Statistical Methods (Sixth Edition, section 4.14) by G.W.
Snedecor and W.G. Cochran, or Principles and Procedures of
Statistics (First Edition, section 5. by R.G.D. Steel and J.H.
Torrie.

Subp. 3. Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1.

Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1
t-values t-values
Degrees of Freedom (one-tail) (two-tail)

1 6.314 12.706
2 2.920 4.303
3 2.353 3.182
4 2.132 2.776
5 2.015 2.571
6 1.943 2.447
7 1.895 2.365
8 1.860 2.306
9 1.833 2.262
10 1.812 2.228
11 1.796 2.201
12 1.782 2.179
13 1.771 2.160
14 1.761 2.145
15 1.753 2.131
16 1.746 2.120
17 1.740 2.110
18 1.734 2.101
19 1.729 2.093
20 1.725 2.086
21 1.721 2.080
22 1.717 2.074
23 1.714 2.069
24 1.711 2.064
25 1.708 2.060
30 1.697 2.042
40 1.684 2.021

1Adopted from Table III of Statistical Tables for
Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research (1947, R.A.
Fisher and F. Yates).

STAT AUTH: MS s 116.07 subds 4,4b

HIST: 9 SR 115
Current as of 11/06/03
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

John H <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message news:<jlu9409q7il19r5dl8i86kfjoa4cm5geed DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
 > On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, atl_man2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
 >
  > >"John Gaquin" <john.gaquin DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message news:<2NGdnVDl_8dpM9nd4p2dnA DeleteThis @comcast.com>...
   > >> "John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
   > >> >
   > >> > None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual capacity
   > >> > with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and intellectual
   > >> > integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
   > >>
   > >> He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
   > >> sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown that
   > >> 86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
   > >> three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society.
  > >
  > >Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
  > >as well as exactly what type of research performed.
 >
 > He may have used the
 >
 > He may have used COCHRAN'S APPROXIMATION TO THE BEHRENS-FISHER
 > STUDENTS' T-TEST. This would probably be appropriate for answering
 > the question,b'asskisser. Read the following carefully, and notice
 > that all the available background data must be used. Please pay
 > particular attention to Subpart 3, b'asskisser. This is where you will
 > find the information on the necessary degrees of freedom.
 >
 > Subpart 1. In general. Subpart 2 describes Cochran's
 > approximation to the Behrens-Fisher Students' t-test. Subpart 3
 > presents the standard t-tables at the 0.05 level of significance.
 >
 > Subp. 2. Cochran's Approximation to the Behrens-Fisher
 > Students' t-test. Using all the available background data (nb
 > readings), calculate the background mean (XB) and background
 > variance (sB2). For the single monitoring well under
 > investigation (nm reading), calculate the monitoring mean (Xm)
 > and monitoring variance (sm2).
 >
 > For any set of data (X1, X2, ... Xn) the mean is calculated
 > by:
 > X1 + X2 ... + Xn
 > -
 > X = ________________
 > n
 >
 > and the variance is calculated by:
 > _ _ _
 > (X1 - X)2 + (X2 - X)2 ... + (Xn - X)2
 >
 > s2 = ___________________________________
 > n-1
 >
 > where "n" denotes the number of observations in the set of data.
 >
 > The t-test uses these data summary measures to calculate a
 > t-statistic (t*) and a comparison t-statistic (tc). The t*
 > value is compared to the tc value and a conclusion reached as to
 > whether there has been a statistically significant change in any
 > indicator parameter.
 >
 > The t-statistic for all parameters except pH and similar
 > monitoring parameters is:
 >
 > If the value of this t-statistic is negative then there is
 > no significant difference between the monitoring data and
 > background data. It should be noted that significantly small
 > negative values may be indicative of a failure of the assumption
 > made for test validity or errors have been made in collecting
 > the background data.
 >
 > The t-statistic (tc), against which t* will be compared,
 > necessitates finding tB and tm from standard (one-tailed) tables
 > where,
 >
 > tB = t-tables with (nB-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
 > level of significance.
 >
 > tm = t-tables with (nm-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
 > level of significance.
 >
 > Finally, the special weightings WB and Wm are defined as:
 > sB2 sm2
 >
 > WB = ___ and WM = ___
 >
 > nB nm
 >
 > and so the comparison t-statistic is:
 > WBtB + Wmtm
 >
 > tc = ___________
 >
 > WB + Wm
 >
 > The t-statistic (t*) is now compared with the comparison
 > t-statistic (tc) using the following decision-rule:
 >
 > If t* is equal to or larger than tc, then conclude that
 > there most likely has been a significant increase in this
 > specific parameter.
 >
 > If t* is less than tc, then conclude that most likely there
 > has not been a change in this specific parameter.
 >
 > The t-statistic for testing pH and similar monitoring
 > parameters is constructed in the same manner as previously
 > described except the negative sign (if any) is discarded and the
 > caveat concerning the negative value is ignored. The standard
 > (two-tailed) tables are used in the construction tc for pH and
 > similar monitoring parameters.
 >
 > If t* is equal to or larger than tc then conclude that
 > there most likely has been a significant increase (if the
 > initial t* had been negative, this would imply a significant
 > decrease). If t* is less than tc, then conclude that there most
 > likely has been no change.
 >
 > A further discussion of the test may be found in
 > Statistical Methods (Sixth Edition, section 4.14) by G.W.
 > Snedecor and W.G. Cochran, or Principles and Procedures of
 > Statistics (First Edition, section 5. by R.G.D. Steel and J.H.
 > Torrie.
 >
 > Subp. 3. Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1.
 >
 > Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1
 > t-values t-values
 > Degrees of Freedom (one-tail) (two-tail)
 >
 > 1 6.314 12.706
 > 2 2.920 4.303
 > 3 2.353 3.182
 > 4 2.132 2.776
 > 5 2.015 2.571
 > 6 1.943 2.447
 > 7 1.895 2.365
 > 8 1.860 2.306
 > 9 1.833 2.262
 > 10 1.812 2.228
 > 11 1.796 2.201
 > 12 1.782 2.179
 > 13 1.771 2.160
 > 14 1.761 2.145
 > 15 1.753 2.131
 > 16 1.746 2.120
 > 17 1.740 2.110
 > 18 1.734 2.101
 > 19 1.729 2.093
 > 20 1.725 2.086
 > 21 1.721 2.080
 > 22 1.717 2.074
 > 23 1.714 2.069
 > 24 1.711 2.064
 > 25 1.708 2.060
 > 30 1.697 2.042
 > 40 1.684 2.021
 >
 > 1Adopted from Table III of Statistical Tables for
 > Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research (1947, R.A.
 > Fisher and F. Yates).
 >
 > STAT AUTH: MS s 116.07 subds 4,4b
 >
 > HIST: 9 SR 115
 > Current as of 11/06/03
 > John H
 >

Uh, hate to disappoint you, John, but as usual, you are talking out of
your ass again. I asked you to "please post the processes used to
obtain the above research numbers,
  > >as well as exactly what type of research performed."
You come back with "he MAY have used". I didn't ask what he may have
used, I asked what he DID use. You may not understand this, from your
pasted post, I'd suspect not, but there are many, many statistical
processes that may have been used. NOW, I want to know what process
JOHN used to come up with that data, and the references. That is what
I asked for, was it not? Did you give me that information? NO><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

"John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
news:jlu9409q7il19r5dl8i86kfjoa4cm5geed@4ax.com...
 > On 2 Mar 2004 12:02:01 -0800, atl_man2.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:
 >
  > >"John Gaquin" <john.gaquin.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<2NGdnVDl_8dpM9nd4p2dnA.RemoveThis@comcast.com>...
   > >> "John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
   > >> >
   > >> > None would be so bold as to compare their meager intellectual
capacity
   > >> > with your's, Harry. You have demonstrated your acumen and
intellectual
   > >> > integrity repeatedly. Who could hope to compare?
   > >>
   > >> He just plucks these little gems from one of those "self improvement"
   > >> sections of Reader's Digest. Extensive personal research has shown
that
   > >> 86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have required from
   > >> three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin society.
  > >
  > >Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
  > >as well as exactly what type of research performed.
 >
 > He may have used the
 >
 > He may have used COCHRAN'S APPROXIMATION TO THE BEHRENS-FISHER
 > STUDENTS' T-TEST. This would probably be appropriate for answering
 > the question,b'asskisser. Read the following carefully, and notice
 > that all the available background data must be used. Please pay
 > particular attention to Subpart 3, b'asskisser. This is where you will
 > find the information on the necessary degrees of freedom.
 >
 > Subpart 1. In general. Subpart 2 describes Cochran's
 > approximation to the Behrens-Fisher Students' t-test. Subpart 3
 > presents the standard t-tables at the 0.05 level of significance.
 >
 > Subp. 2. Cochran's Approximation to the Behrens-Fisher
 > Students' t-test. Using all the available background data (nb
 > readings), calculate the background mean (XB) and background
 > variance (sB2). For the single monitoring well under
 > investigation (nm reading), calculate the monitoring mean (Xm)
 > and monitoring variance (sm2).
 >
 > For any set of data (X1, X2, ... Xn) the mean is calculated
 > by:
 > X1 + X2 ... + Xn
 > -
 > X = ________________
 > n
 >
 > and the variance is calculated by:
 > _ _ _
 > (X1 - X)2 + (X2 - X)2 ... + (Xn - X)2
 >
 > s2 = ___________________________________
 > n-1
 >
 > where "n" denotes the number of observations in the set of data.
 >
 > The t-test uses these data summary measures to calculate a
 > t-statistic (t*) and a comparison t-statistic (tc). The t*
 > value is compared to the tc value and a conclusion reached as to
 > whether there has been a statistically significant change in any
 > indicator parameter.
 >
 > The t-statistic for all parameters except pH and similar
 > monitoring parameters is:
 >
 > If the value of this t-statistic is negative then there is
 > no significant difference between the monitoring data and
 > background data. It should be noted that significantly small
 > negative values may be indicative of a failure of the assumption
 > made for test validity or errors have been made in collecting
 > the background data.
 >
 > The t-statistic (tc), against which t* will be compared,
 > necessitates finding tB and tm from standard (one-tailed) tables
 > where,
 >
 > tB = t-tables with (nB-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
 > level of significance.
 >
 > tm = t-tables with (nm-1) degrees of freedom, at the 0.05
 > level of significance.
 >
 > Finally, the special weightings WB and Wm are defined as:
 > sB2 sm2
 >
 > WB = ___ and WM = ___
 >
 > nB nm
 >
 > and so the comparison t-statistic is:
 > WBtB + Wmtm
 >
 > tc = ___________
 >
 > WB + Wm
 >
 > The t-statistic (t*) is now compared with the comparison
 > t-statistic (tc) using the following decision-rule:
 >
 > If t* is equal to or larger than tc, then conclude that
 > there most likely has been a significant increase in this
 > specific parameter.
 >
 > If t* is less than tc, then conclude that most likely there
 > has not been a change in this specific parameter.
 >
 > The t-statistic for testing pH and similar monitoring
 > parameters is constructed in the same manner as previously
 > described except the negative sign (if any) is discarded and the
 > caveat concerning the negative value is ignored. The standard
 > (two-tailed) tables are used in the construction tc for pH and
 > similar monitoring parameters.
 >
 > If t* is equal to or larger than tc then conclude that
 > there most likely has been a significant increase (if the
 > initial t* had been negative, this would imply a significant
 > decrease). If t* is less than tc, then conclude that there most
 > likely has been no change.
 >
 > A further discussion of the test may be found in
 > Statistical Methods (Sixth Edition, section 4.14) by G.W.
 > Snedecor and W.G. Cochran, or Principles and Procedures of
 > Statistics (First Edition, section 5. by R.G.D. Steel and J.H.
 > Torrie.
 >
 > Subp. 3. Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1.
 >
 > Standard T-Tables 0.05 Level of Significance1
 > t-values t-values
 > Degrees of Freedom (one-tail) (two-tail)
 >
 > 1 6.314 12.706
 > 2 2.920 4.303
 > 3 2.353 3.182
 > 4 2.132 2.776
 > 5 2.015 2.571
 > 6 1.943 2.447
 > 7 1.895 2.365
 > 8 1.860 2.306
 > 9 1.833 2.262
 > 10 1.812 2.228
 > 11 1.796 2.201
 > 12 1.782 2.179
 > 13 1.771 2.160
 > 14 1.761 2.145
 > 15 1.753 2.131
 > 16 1.746 2.120
 > 17 1.740 2.110
 > 18 1.734 2.101
 > 19 1.729 2.093
 > 20 1.725 2.086
 > 21 1.721 2.080
 > 22 1.717 2.074
 > 23 1.714 2.069
 > 24 1.711 2.064
 > 25 1.708 2.060
 > 30 1.697 2.042
 > 40 1.684 2.021
 >
 > 1Adopted from Table III of Statistical Tables for
 > Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research (1947, R.A.
 > Fisher and F. Yates).
 >
 > STAT AUTH: MS s 116.07 subds 4,4b
 >
 > HIST: 9 SR 115
 > Current as of 11/06/03
 > John H
 >
 > On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
 > on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

For more insight into the process see:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039309426X/104-1765618-7718307?v=glance" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039309426X/104-1765618-7...307?v=g</a>
and
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565117972/qid=1078321131//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6921677-8359115?v=glance&n=507846" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565117972/qid=107832113...ref=sr_</a>

Have a nice day!

Mark Browne<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

"basskisser" <atl_man2.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 >
 > Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
 > as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 00:02:01 -0500, "John Gaquin"
<john.gaquin RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

 >
 >"basskisser" <atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
  >>
  >> Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
  >> as well as exactly what type of research performed.
 >
 >I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.
 >
 >
 >
A very appropriate statistical technique, if I may say so. The results
of this technique are above reproach and have never been shown to have
shortcomings.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

"John Gaquin" <john.gaquin DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message news:<taqdnew8Y5jRutrdRVn-ig DeleteThis @comcast.com>...
 > "basskisser" <atl_man2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
  > >
  > > Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
  > > as well as exactly what type of research performed.
 >
 > I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.

Please post the analysis results.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death... 

"basskisser" <atl_man2.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 >
 > Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
 > as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lawrence's Ship of Death...