<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ECUSA survey results released</title>
	<atom:link href="http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/</link>
	<description>"I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension." -- Robertson Davies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:05:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Washington Post?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s racism pseudo-survey</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/comment-page-1/#comment-1553</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Washington Post?¢‚Ç¨‚Ñ¢s racism pseudo-survey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:55:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/#comment-1553</guid>
		<description>[...] Self-selected samples have been discussed on this blog several times because, like some creature from a B-movie horror flick, they keep coming back and being taken seriously.&#160; In fact, in one previous instance, the Washington Post was taken in by a similarly worthless survey based on a self-selected sample.&#160; See other blog posts here and here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Self-selected samples have been discussed on this blog several times because, like some creature from a B-movie horror flick, they keep coming back and being taken seriously.&nbsp; In fact, in one previous instance, the Washington Post was taken in by a similarly worthless survey based on a self-selected sample.&nbsp; See other blog posts here and here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Whocares</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/comment-page-1/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>Whocares</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/#comment-224</guid>
		<description>Yes, I think you&#039;re right.  Even though I personally thought and continue to think the survey was an interesting idea, there isn&#039;t much here to suggest that anything in particular has changed.  

But, personally speaking, I don&#039;t see why it matters what the bishops think now compared to what they thought in 2003.  The real question is what will they do when it comes time to vote this June.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I think you&#8217;re right.  Even though I personally thought and continue to think the survey was an interesting idea, there isn&#8217;t much here to suggest that anything in particular has changed.  </p>
<p>But, personally speaking, I don&#8217;t see why it matters what the bishops think now compared to what they thought in 2003.  The real question is what will they do when it comes time to vote this June.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CaNN :: We started it.</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/comment-page-1/#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>CaNN :: We started it.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/#comment-192</guid>
		<description>[...] - STATS-GUY: &#8220;Even on its own terms, I don&#8217;t think the LEAC survey provides much encouragement for traditionalist Episcopalians&#8221;; The Results of the Infamous +Carey backed Bishops Survey &#8230; (magicstatistics) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8211; STATS-GUY: &#8220;Even on its own terms, I don&#8217;t think the LEAC survey provides much encouragement for traditionalist Episcopalians&#8221;; The Results of the Infamous +Carey backed Bishops Survey &#8230; (magicstatistics) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tobias S Haller BSG</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/comment-page-1/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>Tobias S Haller BSG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/#comment-149</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this research. Note as well that the surveyors did not report on the supplementary questions that formed part of questions 1 and 2 -- and would have indicated if this vote represented a chagne (or if the person submitting the survey actually voted in Minneapolis on either issue.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this research. Note as well that the surveyors did not report on the supplementary questions that formed part of questions 1 and 2 &#8212; and would have indicated if this vote represented a chagne (or if the person submitting the survey actually voted in Minneapolis on either issue.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd Granger</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/comment-page-1/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd Granger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2006/03/31/ecusa-survey-results-released/#comment-146</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Scott.  The scientific study reader/physician in me really found the broad statements about these results questionable.  In fact, I was hoping that you would comment on them as a professional statistician, and you have done so effectively.

Here&#039;s hoping your analysis will be paid attention to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Scott.  The scientific study reader/physician in me really found the broad statements about these results questionable.  In fact, I was hoping that you would comment on them as a professional statistician, and you have done so effectively.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s hoping your analysis will be paid attention to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
