On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:59:07 -0400, M. Bevelhimer <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Senor Feesh,
>
>Sorry not to get back sooner, but I do appreciate the reference.

Nada.  Not many people have time on their hands like a retarred and
home-bound senile citizen like Professor Poisson.


> Yes, my situation is similar to Corbet's, but not exactly the same.

I knew that.  In fact that was the first time I ever heard of Corbet
when I found him on the web.  :-)


> I may have to hit you up in that stats forum next time.

I know nothing about your unusual statistical problem, and I seriously
doubt anyone in the sci.stat.math forum does.  I am gradually
discovering that except for a handful of posters, their statistical
knowledge is not far above those of "Village Idiots" in other forums.
In fact, the most prolific of the posters there IS supposed to be
a statistician, but he is like Lee Bell when Lee bunders -- he
continues to ARGUE and OBFUSCATE, that I FINALLY had to tell him
and a couple others, as politely I could, this morning:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.stat.math/msg/06c7dd2f44d80ea3?
hl=en

RF>  There is NO ROOM in their cases *** BUT *** for me to point out
RF>  their errors as BLUNDERS, and no room to "agree to disagree".


My postings there ranged from "Multiple Regression", "The expected
sign of a multiple regression coefficient", "Testing a Pseudorandom
Number Generator", and perhaps other threads.  But the most
interesting one turned out to be the OT thread I introduced there,
inspired by Bjorn's book about Paul Erdos, titled,

"All Integers Are Interesting (with Proof)".

I even inadvertently got Christopher Columbus into the act.  ;-)

It's in sci.stat.math.  :-)

-- Bob.