Originally Posted by ET Warrior
[M]ost statistics aren't conclusive anyways because it's so easy to manipulate numbers to "prove" your point.
Normally, I'd get sufficiently riled up over this to post a long reply. Today, I'll merely reiterate that it is never
easy to manipulate statistics, short of downright forging the input.
It is always
possible to tell when someone tries to pass off bogus numbers, if only one has the mathematical litteracy equivalent to the textual litteracy we expect from ten-year-olds.
In this single case of demanding statistical proof of a proposed 'concensus', Dravis actually has a point (count your blessings, this doesn't happen every day...). So quit whining, and put up or shut up
, so we can get on to the relelvant