At 17:19 31/03/2014 +0000, the.Duke.of.URL wrote:
>Quite right, John, And Gelman doesn't distinguish between them for
>probably obvious reasons. But then, neither did the former Labour govt.
>Presumably they took the view that negative meant controversial ....
Often, but not necessarily controversial. Some papers are frequently cited
because of a widely- accepted (hence not particularly controversial) view
that they represent a very good example of 'what one should not do'!
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
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]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|