Re: To 3rd man
- From: cowabungabarty@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:14:34 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 21, 10:29�pm, cowabungaba...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think the problem is that we are starting from different
assumptions.
You are assuming that the ELISA is NOT a random event. I am assuming
that it is based on the fact that in practice the test turns out to be
often no better than a coin flip in terms of sensitivity.
And we are analyzing the same phenomenon but using different measures
of it. Binomial probability theorem validates what you are saying.
Simple statistics validates what I am saying.
In any event let's just call a truce. I know I understand what you're
saying and how you are arriving at your conclusions. You don't think I
do get it but I swear I do.
In any event, let's just all agree to disagree and move on to discuss
something else.
I can't take another day of math debates.
Oh stfu already chuck you stalker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: To 3rd man
- From: cowabungabartnewsgroupleader
- Re: To 3rd man
- From: cowabungabartnewsgroupleader
- Re: To 3rd man, I am your puppet master
- From: Chuck P Adams- Newsgroup leader since 1997
- Re: To 3rd man
- References:
- To 3rd man
- From: cowabungabarty
- To 3rd man
- Prev by Date: Re: IV ABX Study for Psychosis
- Next by Date: Re: To 3rd man, I am your puppet master
- Previous by thread: Re: To 3rd man, that is me, so why am I asking to speak to myself?
- Next by thread: Re: To 3rd man, I am your puppet master
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading