On 13-Apr-05 Stephen McKay wrote:
> Hope this helps. Happy to provide further details, but given
> the non-stats nature not sure if it merits whole-list attention.
Much gratitude to Steve McKay for providing such a broad
spectrum of information about the coverage and provenance
of this story.
Despite his last reservation (above), however, I'd like to
express the opinion that, in a group like RadStats, we're
not just concerned about the "Stats". We are -- or should
be, in my view -- concerned about the quality and provenance
of the data which underlie the uses to which the data are
put, often subsequent to technical procedures whose results
are valid if the data are valid, but questionable if the data
are invalid.
At bottom, statstics is about information.
Our group by nature should as much comcerned about the
information as about any technicalities of how it is handled.
Provided, of course, that the technicalitiea are up to the job.
It looks very much as though the "CS2" system was not.
I shall read with interest the computer press reports which
Steve has pointed out.
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 13-Apr-05 Time: 11:28:08
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|