On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:11:45 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Right, so it's only geographically, temporally and ethnically biased, which makes it - er, still crap :-)
It doesn't include or exclude based on geography, time period, or ethnicity, so it's actually _un_biased on those criteria. The exclusion based on whether one plays basketball is a bit of an odd exception to that, I admit, but could be handled with that subarticle split I suggested earlier.
Yes, it is. Check out the stats on average height by country. There is a 10" difference between the lowest and the highest
In any event, I still don't see the problem with selective lists in general as long as the criteria for selection is objectively described. This is a list of people who are taller than a specific height, a clear criteria on which to judge inclusion or exclusion. Whether the subject is "crap" or not is a separate issue.
But the "objective" value of tall is subjective, and largely based on the number of hits it gets, looking at the history.
Guy (JzG)