daytripper

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:48:07 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:55:56 -0400, "Mike"
><mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> LOL.. You have to laugh at all of the anti-german posts, both in here and
>>the re.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup.. The rest of the world knows that
>>German stuff is pretty damn tough and generally of high quality, but US
>>posters just can't except it..
>
>What do you expect, in a country where most people think GW Bush is
>doing a good job?

Ok, that's *two* things we agree on!

/daytripper
'00 s4 spd. Keep agreeing with me and you'll take all the fun out of it

NoSpam

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:nr4970d0jc23sd5o92grdkdb6l3p79t3bk@4ax.com...
> On 7 Apr 2004 04:41:28 -0700, andrewj_nospamthomas@yahoo.com.au
> (Andrew Thomas) wrote:
>
> >I drove a Chevrolet Cavalier
>
> When car enthusiasts go to hell, they are given a Cavalier to drive.
>

Are you sure? I thought they got Ford Pintos and were made to have rear end
collisions!

nospam

Adam Schwartz

In article <iu4970d3pb9sn2ar9eis9k3skqdl2fr9vn@4ax.com>,
dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:55:56 -0400, "Mike"
> <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > LOL.. You have to laugh at all of the anti-german posts, both in here and
> >the re.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup.. The rest of the world knows that
> >German stuff is pretty damn tough and generally of high quality, but US
> >posters just can't except it..
>
> What do you expect, in a country where most people think GW Bush is
> doing a good job?

Wait a minute! If you remember correctly, based on numbers alone Al Gore
won.. Yes its true.. Al Gore won the popular vote. But unfortunately,
that wasnt good enough... GW still won the electoral college vote

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

I for one was mad.

In addition, GW's approval rating is falling.

The original comment was a wise *** trying to get a rise just for fun of
it...

Oh well..

-A

Fred W.

"Ron Loewy" <rloewy@transport.com> wrote in message
news:2UZcc.10363$bd4.6093@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Unless you can provide a scientific study that proves this, it is nothing
> more than a theory. I would argue that the percieved value for purchase
> price might skew the results somewhat, but scientific surveys that use
> proven statistical tools always provide a margin of error and a degree of
> confidence in the results.

There is nothing "scientific" about these surveys. They are merely surveys
with no control group. No hypothesis. Nothing suggesting a scientific
method.

> From what I have seen about the JD dependability
> surveys, they are using the same standards used in the industry for non
> critical applications.

Yes they are. They are all equally flawed.

-Fred W

dizzy

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:38:58 GMT, daytripper
<day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:48:07 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:55:56 -0400, "Mike"
>><mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> LOL.. You have to laugh at all of the anti-german posts, both in here and
>>>the re.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup.. The rest of the world knows that
>>>German stuff is pretty damn tough and generally of high quality, but US
>>>posters just can't except it..
>>
>>What do you expect, in a country where most people think GW Bush is
>>doing a good job?
>
>Ok, that's *two* things we agree on!
>
>/daytripper
>'00 s4 spd. Keep agreeing with me and you'll take all the fun out of it

What's the other thing?

daytripper

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:21:19 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:38:58 GMT, daytripper
><day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:48:07 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:55:56 -0400, "Mike"
>>><mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> LOL.. You have to laugh at all of the anti-german posts, both in here and
>>>>the re.autos.makers.chrysler newsgroup.. The rest of the world knows that
>>>>German stuff is pretty damn tough and generally of high quality, but US
>>>>posters just can't except it..
>>>
>>>What do you expect, in a country where most people think GW Bush is
>>>doing a good job?
>>
>>Ok, that's *two* things we agree on!
>>
>>/daytripper
>>'00 s4 spd. Keep agreeing with me and you'll take all the fun out of it
>
>What's the other thing?

Damned if I can remember. And Google is no help in the matter...

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd. Nevermind. We'll keep it at just the one thing

Ron Loewy

"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:I_qdnUjTtOjHHejd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
>
> "Ron Loewy" <rloewy@transport.com> wrote in message
> news:2UZcc.10363$bd4.6093@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > Unless you can provide a scientific study that proves this, it is
nothing
> > more than a theory. I would argue that the percieved value for purchase
> > price might skew the results somewhat, but scientific surveys that use
> > proven statistical tools always provide a margin of error and a degree
of
> > confidence in the results.
>
> There is nothing "scientific" about these surveys. They are merely
surveys
> with no control group. No hypothesis. Nothing suggesting a scientific
> method.

It is a survey conducted using a proper SRS. What do you need a control
group for if you have no motive to prove a theorem (or hypothesis)?
Once you take a large enough sample you can use scientific methods to create
a confidence interval. Hypothesis testing is just one use for the
statistical methods used in surveys like these.

Anyway, how are you going to have a control group? Sell people placebo cars
that just look like a BMW but are actually a Hyundai under the skin?

Since the same formulas and survey methods are used for the creation of the
confidence intervals as what would have been used in a hypothesis testing, I
fail to see how one is more scientific than the other.

Ron.

Fred W.

"Ron Loewy" <rloewy@transport.com> wrote in message
news:zbAdc.3657$F9.505@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:I_qdnUjTtOjHHejd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
> >
> > "Ron Loewy" <rloewy@transport.com> wrote in message
> > news:2UZcc.10363$bd4.6093@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > > Unless you can provide a scientific study that proves this, it is
> nothing
> > > more than a theory. I would argue that the percieved value for
purchase
> > > price might skew the results somewhat, but scientific surveys that use
> > > proven statistical tools always provide a margin of error and a degree
> of
> > > confidence in the results.
> >
> > There is nothing "scientific" about these surveys. They are merely
> surveys
> > with no control group. No hypothesis. Nothing suggesting a scientific
> > method.
>
> It is a survey conducted using a proper SRS. What do you need a control
> group for if you have no motive to prove a theorem (or hypothesis)?
> Once you take a large enough sample you can use scientific methods to
create
> a confidence interval. Hypothesis testing is just one use for the
> statistical methods used in surveys like these.
>
> Anyway, how are you going to have a control group? Sell people placebo
cars
> that just look like a BMW but are actually a Hyundai under the skin?

You are pointing out the differences between statistics and science.
Statistics do not *scientifically* prove or disprove anything. That is my
point. Not that what they say is or is not valid, but that it is not
*scientific*.

-Fred

Ron Loewy

"Fred W." <Fred.Wills@allspam myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:HvadnUnFXoIuROvdRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
>
> You are pointing out the differences between statistics and science.
> Statistics do not *scientifically* prove or disprove anything. That is my
> point. Not that what they say is or is not valid, but that it is not
> *scientific*.

Statistics use science (math) in order to predict population parameters
based on a sample with confidence levels and margins of errors (that's the
science part of it). If a survey is done using true SRS with large enough
sample sizes, we can say that we are presenting statistical data analyzed
and collected scientifically from it. That's all I mean by that.

They do not provide a e=mc^2 kind of proof, but than the world we live in is
too complicated to reduce into simple linear equations - and statistics
(when properly interpreted, but this is an entirely different issue) can
provide us with very accurate prediction of the real population parameters.
All I saying is that from my understanding, JD follows the required
procedures in order to present information that is not biased, and thus (as
the science tells us) is a good indication of the true situation.

Before we get into sematics of language - my original post was that slamming
JDPower as a mere marketing organization that provides useless information
is far from the truth as I see it.

FWIW - We know from Quatum Mechanics that even e=mc^2 breaks down in certain
situations - so there is no true scientific "silver bullet" out there.

Ron.

Levi Ramsey

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:27:44 +0000, Ron Loewy wrote:

> FWIW - We know from Quatum Mechanics that even e=mc^2 breaks down in certain
> situations - so there is no true scientific "silver bullet" out there.

Anyone who even tries to claim science can prove anything is idiot.

[the kind of idiot that would buy an Audi... ;o) ]

--
Levi Ramsey
levi@cygnetnet.net

How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is, after all, so poorly lit...
Currently playing: Metallica - Load - The Outlaw Torn
Linux 2.6.2-3mdk
17:19:00 up 34 days, 16:35, 11 users, load average: 0.50, 0.42, 0.37