In article <ph7hn2l0caa3np35ufc69v7onihl01q5i0@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:56:20 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4577589f$0$82555$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

> >With such a huge statistical sample,
> >there is an extremely small margin or error in the results, less than
> >0.5% if the entire population of subscribers in the U.S. (around
> >220,000,000) is used. If the 43,000 responses were divided by 20 cities
> >equally, this would be 2000 responses per city, the margin of error
> >would be less than 2%. No one can argue with these results.
>
> On the contrary -- that's "voodoo statistics", wrong on virtually all
> counts.

john, you're going to have a hard time shilling for cingular if you
continue to demonstrate your ignorance of statistics.