Reef Fish wrote:

> >> WHAT data?  You mean that worthless tabloid tabulation by Rodale
> >> based on worthless data on SELF-SELECTED samples of Rodale subscribers?
>
> Heeeere comes Yogi ... I mean Lee!  Both flippant logicians, except
> Yogi actually made SENSE when he said, "it ain't over till it's over",
> or the like whereas Lee's typical logic is self-contradictory even
> if any part of it made sense at all.  To wit,

Ahh, I can always depend on you to attack the individual when you don't have
anything better to offer.  Thanks.  OK, we'll have it you way.  My data is
useless and unconfirmed and, because I'm not a statitician, any conclusions
I would draw would be worthless as well.  You, on the other hand, are a
statistician and, therefore, could certainly be expected to use data
properly.  So show us your data.  Or is your only point to detract from the
posts of others with nothing constructive of your own to offer?

> I'll show you HOW to CITE some references later, even if the DATA from
> such references are WORTHLESS. such as the ratings in Rodale's, from
> its clueless readers.

You know, I'm kind of glad you said this.  Here's a quote from one of your
own posts

"The fact that Cozumel is the MOST POPULAR (according to Rodale's also) dive
location
> in the world . . ."

It seems that my data, which you said came from Rondale, I didn't, is
"worthless," but your data from the same source is somehow more valuable.
Feeling a bit hypocrytical yet?

> >It might have been Rondale or any of several other equally reliable
> >(read that unreliable) sources.  I have no way of knowing if it was
> >accurate or not.
>
> Then how do you know it's "reliable"?  If it's Rodale, I can tell you
> that it's surveys based on READERS' ratings are NOT RELIABLE, because
> they are, as I had said, worthless self-selected samples of those
> who chose to respond.

First, I didn't say it was reliable.  Note the words "read that unreliable"
in the quote above.  Second, data is not worthless, but may not be suitable
for conclusive analysis.  I didn't draw any conclusion other than what was
stated by someone else.  My statement was correct.  It was stated.  If you
chose to read more into data which, when cited by someone else is useless
but when cited by you is conclusive, that's your problem, not mine.

> BUT, I'll play along with Lee's "reliable but dunno-accurate-or-not"
> oxymoron game on RODALE.

Back to your old habit of assigning blame to others for what you said
yourself.  I didn't claim the data was from Rondale and I didn't claim it
was reiable.  I specifically said I didn't know where I'd seen it and that
it was unreliable.  You are the only one here who has identified the source
of data or claimed it to be reliable.

> AND those who responded.  In both respects, Rodale's ratings STINK!

I don't believe you know this.  Disproving a rating, I believe, requires
pretty much the same quality of information and analysis as proving one.
You appear to have fallen into the same trap you accuse me of, drawing a
conclusion without reliable data.  My conclusion regarding Rondale's ratings
is that they are not reliable, not that they are right, wrong, stink or
smell pretty.

> >Accurate or not, the fact is

> THAT's a good one!  How can you have a FACT that is not accurate (fact)
> and then base your comments on it?  Let me use your own gun (Rodale's)
> to shoot down YOUR "fact"/foot:

I think you need to take a remedial reading course.  Whether one statment is
accurate has no bearing on whether something else is a fact or not.  You're
so busy attacking the individual, you fail to notice what you're responding
to.  I'll try again.  Whether or not it is true that Molassas is the most
visited dive site in the world, it is true that S. Florida gets a hell of a
lot of diving visitors . . .

Do you dispute my statement that S. Florida gets a hell of alot of diving
visitors?  If not, then you have answered your own question.  If so, show us
your data.

> NOT according to your "reliable" Rodale!  To save a few keystrokes,
> I'll use COM to abbreviate Rodale's "Coffee On Monitor" ratings.  :-)

I did not quote Rondale, you did.  Anything that follows one of your
statements "according to your "reliable Rondale!" is patently meaningless
since it's based on a false initial premises.

> Jan/Feb 1999; TOP 100;  WORLD's MOST POPULAR dive sites:
>      1. Palancar Horseshoe, Coz (COM!)
>      2. Santa Rosa Wall, Coz
>      3. Punta Sur, Coz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rondale's conclusions were based on reader
statements of dive sites they liked the best.  Unless you somehow believe
that sites that most repondents like the best equates to sites all divers
visit most often, your information and your analysis has no application to
the question of whether Molassas is visited most often.  Having a bit of
trouble with your logic?

>      Inference:  a bunch of clueless raters just came back on a
>      trip from Cozumel, most likely their FIRST, because hardly
>      anyone dives the Palancar Horseshoe anymore, for several years.

Show us your data.

> So, ... Molasses Reef is NOT the most visited site in the world.

Show us your data.

> At any rate, I don't have the time to delve into the NONSENSE in
> Rodale's other TABLOID ratings that are ... WORTHLESS.

For someone who has no time for Ronda'e's TABLOID ratings, you obviously
spent a lot of time reading them and even more quoting them to prove your
point.  Perhaps this translates to "your point is WORTHLESS."

Lee