On 30 Dec 2006 at 22:49:47 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:57:44 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And you can look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's.
Sorry, showing my age there...
Some more findings which are relevant here: http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5892
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:33:18 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Some more findings which are relevant here: http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5892
That's flat wrong. The real value is: 87.3% of statistics are made up.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:33:18 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Some more findings which are relevant here: http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5892
That's flat wrong. The real value is: 87.3% of statistics are made up.
Ergo there is an 87.3% probability that the 87.3% statistic is wrong. :-)
Ec
No, there's not even necessarily an 87.3% chance that the statistic given is *made up*. And not just because something made up need not be wrong.
KP
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net > wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:33:18 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
Some more findings which are relevant here: http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/5892
That's flat wrong. The real value is: 87.3% of statistics are made up.
Ergo there is an 87.3% probability that the 87.3% statistic is wrong. :-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l