Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/20/2014 17:16 (04/20/2014 17:16) |
| Message-ID | <slrnll7pas.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (1h & 23m) > Sandman |
In article <p6m7l9dtak8eterfd640s4pqtvpc0muegp@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:
Working cameras on display isn't expected to you? Hmmm...SandmanTony Cooper
Tony found one anomaly when checking 24 items one time, and treated it as statistics - you just agreed with me that it doesn't mean anything since it says nothing about the state of anomalies in a statistical manner.
An "anomaly"? Where do you get that? An anomaly is something that is unusual or unexpected.
One non-working camera out of 24 cameras on display would not be considered to be something unusual or unexpected in a Best Buy. In fact, nospam is vigorously arguing that non-functional display models *would be* expected.I expect cameras to be on display to be in working order.
If there is an anomaly, it is that *only* one out of 24 were non-working.Sounds to contradict your earlier assessement, seeing how nospam said that they're "often" non-working, which you now confirm is what you expect to be the case as well, yet to his comment you replied with non-statistical data and implied that you countered his "often".
To turn the tables on you, please cite where I said that the observation was a statistic. Or, even "treated" it (whatever that means) as a statistic.It's the other way around - nospam made a claim about "often" which is a conclusion based on statistical data, you countered that with non-statistical data and claimed 'I wouldn't call that "often"'.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
