Skip to main content
news

Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby

Tony Cooper
SubjectRe: Colonial Photo & Hobby
FromTony Cooper
Date04/20/2014 18:40 (04/20/2014 12:40)
Message-ID<k4t7l9hb0nde06hmq3r43gm0te9ei0e6qs@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (1h & 35m)

On 20 Apr 2014 15:16:20 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <p6m7l9dtak8eterfd640s4pqtvpc0muegp@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

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.

Tony Cooper
An "anomaly"? Where do you get that? An anomaly is something that is unusual or unexpected.

Sandman
Working cameras on display isn't expected to you? Hmmm...

No. 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.

Tony Cooper
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.

Sandman
I expect cameras to be on display to be in working order.

That's a generality, but this is about a specific: Best Buy displays and nospam's contention.

Tony Cooper
If there is an anomaly, it is that *only* one out of 24 were non-working.

Sandman
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".

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 Cooper
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.

Sandman
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"'.

Don't duck the question. Cite where I said it was a statistic.

Do try to work out the difference between a report of an observation and the presentation of non-statistical data. Also, do try to understand that nospam presented no statistical data. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Sandman (1h & 35m)