Roger Coppock wrote:
I see. We don't need facts or calculations;

We don't need overdrawn conclusions like yours, that's for sure.

we've got Russell.

No, we've got books. Try reading one like I suggested and quite
acting like an ass, Roger. It isn't my job to do your research for
you anymore than I'm expected to fix the problems I see in an
article I review for a journal. My job in that case is to point out
errors and raise questions FOR THE ORGINAL AUTHOR TO
DEAL WITH. If I have a suggestion that I want to make along
those lines it is nice, but not required. The author can complain
and the editor can choose to ignore my review or not. He can
also decide I'm a poor reviewer and never send my another paper
to review. That's how science works. If you don't like it, don't
post to sci.* NGs. However, to save you the trouble of referring
the question to sci.stat.math like I also suggested, I'll do that.
The thread will be titled "Defending statistics".

Cheers,
Russell