Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
From | Tony Cooper |
Date | 04/20/2014 18:40 (04/20/2014 12:40) |
Message-ID | <k4t7l9hb0nde06hmq3r43gm0te9ei0e6qs@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (1h & 35m) |
SandmanNo. The observation was a result of a visit to a Best Buy because of nospam's earlier comments about the frequency of nonworking display units. So, the expectation was that there would be many nonworking units.
In article <p6m7l9dtak8eterfd640s4pqtvpc0muegp@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:SandmanTony 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.Tony Cooper
An "anomaly"? Where do you get that? An anomaly is something that is unusual or unexpected.
Working cameras on display isn't expected to you? Hmmm...
That's a generality, but this is about a specific: Best Buy displays and nospam's contention.Tony CooperSandman
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.
Yes, the anomaly was that the observation resulted in fewer nonworking cameras than nospam had led me to think I would find. It is not an anomaly that one out of 24 is nonworking at Best Buy because there is no expectation of 100% working units, but it is an anomaly if you accept nospam's premise.Tony CooperSandman
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".
Don't duck the question. Cite where I said it was a statistic.Tony CooperSandman
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"'.