Re: Jack are you a MAN or a RAT?


Jack Tomsky wrote:

"Luis A. Afonso" wrote:

two minutes AFTER my post on "Hypothesis Testing -
the TEST
STATISTIC) today (and yesterday's post) both of which
had throughly
refuted Afonso's arguments for his mistakes.

I had already followed up to his present post of pure
noise.
I can't resist playing the role of Jack in response
to Afonso's
questions
because I know Jack will be too polite in his
response if he responds
at all.

Jack Tomsky


Why didn't you ask Bob Ling how he found
___________Z= _-0.9542_____________
(Aug 16, 2006, 11:43) OBVIOUSLY WRONG. WHY?

I don't have to ask, because he was correct in
correcting your
errors, and the value of Z is correct for the test.


Reef Fish did make a careless slip in omitting (1/n1+1/n2)
in the pooled variance formula.which would have made his
Z = -.35487, though it would not have altered his statistical
conclusion, or yours, based on your use of the wrong variance.


Why you didn't admit that my way to find the
variance is the ONLY CORRECT in order to solve the
problem was started this thread?

That was your error. Bob had already pointed out to
you,
and explained why, your variance is correct if used
in a
confidence interval statement, but is the wrong one
to use
for the test statistic in testing Ho: p1 = p2.


Why you not comment my checking throughout
simulations?

Because it is irrelevant to the issue esplained by
Bob?


Have you feared of Bob Ling´s reaction or are you
trying to give him a hand?

Bob is doing rather well without my help. I merely
asked you WHERE
Bob " insisted" as you alleged when he had already
said your variance
was fine for confidence interval construction of the
difference of
proportions. If he had insisted on one, how could
he have said
your variance is correct for confidence intervals?

Don't you think you are missing the point entirely
that the
issue is what TEST STATISTIC is the correct one to
use for
hypothesis testing and what is correct for confidence
intervals in the particular problem?

Have you the opinion that I am an ignorant (as Bob
Ling classified me) or else the bundle is called Reef
Fish?

If the bundle is called Reef Fish, why didn't you
address him as
Reef Fish, instead of Bob Ling. Bob Ling has never
posted a
single post in sci.stat.math using the posting name
Bob Ling --
though we all know who he is. All of his posts,
thousands of
them, were all posted under the name Reef Fish.

You must to answer this questions in order the
Readers respect you.

I don't have to answer your question about your
ignorance.
The readers can decide it for themselves. For the
same
reason, I'll chance that your theory is wrong that if
I don't
answer your question about your ignorance I would
suffer
the disrespect from Readers that you proclaim.

_____licas (Luis A. Afonso)

-- Reef Fish Bob (playing JackTomsky on TV).


-- Reef Fish Bob (playing Jack Tomsky on a TV re-run with 4 lines
changed).



One of these days, I will return the favor and play Reef Fish Bob by calling Afonso a "quack".

Jack

No, Jack. Everyone (except those who stepped into sci.stat.math for
less than
a week or so) already knew Afonso is a Quack. Most old-timers tuned
him out
completely.

He is dangerous only to those few innocent visitors who think he is not
a
Quack. :-) They might leave not knowing they had suffered permanent
damage from Afonso's posts.

The other aspect of it is that there are THREE (or may be even FOUR)
different Afonsos. The easiest giveaway of those other Afonsos is that
they can write a complete English sentence that is grammatically
correct, and does not the word "raison". :-)

Those are more dangerous because they are much more likely to be
taken semi-seriously than the ORIGINAL Afonso -- the one posting
NOW.

Thanks again for catching my careless slip, and I am glad to have to
change my TV script by four lines

-- Reef Fish Bob.

.

Relevant Pages