My radical views on hypothesis testing have also been
endorsed in the Wiley books, Accelerated Life Testing
by Wayne Nelson and Statistical Intervals: A Guide
for Practitioners by G.J. Hahn and W.Q. Meeker, as
well as in many other books. Afonso has never been
cited by anyone except in a negative way. Jack
(moderator)


REFUSING ONCE MORE to transcript the text where such
a calamity is put down, staying mute in what context
it was (I DO NOT BELIEVE) written, being absent any
rational justification, ignoring systematically the
dozen of ways (here in WEB) stating that the null
hypotheses cannot proved true even to be accept, to
Jack Tomsky should be honoured as the GREATER LIAR
AND CHEATER in sci. stat math.

Luis Amaral Afonso [The moderator destroyer]

My radical views on hypothesis testing have also been
endorsed in the Wiley books, Accelerated Life Testing
by Wayne Nelson and Statistical Intervals: A Guide
for Practitioners by G.J. Hahn and W.Q. Meeker, as
well as in many other books. Afonso has never been
cited by anyone except in a negative way. Jack
(moderator)

REFUSING ONCE MORE to transcript the text where such
a calamity is put down, staying mute in what context
it was (I DO NOT BELIEVE) written, being absent any
rational justification, ignoring systematically the
dozen of ways (here in WEB) stating that the null
hypotheses cannot proved true even to be accept, to
Jack Tomsky should be honoured as the GREATER LIAR
AND CHEATER in sci. stat math.

Luis Amaral Afonso [The moderator destroyer]

Look up those references in the library.  I'm not going to do your research for you.

Jack (moderator)- Ocultar texto citado -

- Mostrar texto citado -

On 29 Jun, 18:31, Jack Tomsky <jtom... at (no spam) ix.netcom.com
wrote:
My radical views on hypothesis testing have also
been
endorsed in the Wiley books, Accelerated Life
Testing
by Wayne Nelson and Statistical Intervals: A
Guide
for Practitioners by G.J. Hahn and W.Q. Meeker,
as
well as in many other books. Afonso has never
been
cited by anyone except in a negative way. Jack
(moderator)

REFUSING ONCE MORE to transcript the text where
such
a calamity is put down, staying mute in what
context
it was (I DO NOT BELIEVE) written, being absent
any
rational justification, ignoring systematically
the
dozen of ways (here in WEB) stating that the null
hypotheses cannot proved true even to be accept,
to
Jack Tomsky should be honoured as the GREATER
LIAR
AND CHEATER in sci. stat math.

Luis Amaral Afonso [The moderator destroyer]

Look up those references in the library. I'm not
going to do your research for you.

Jack (moderator)- Ocultar texto citado -

- Mostrar texto citado -

My response to the peacock Tomsky

IN VIEW THE IGNORANCE YOU ARE SHOWN YOU ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO
HAVE YOURSELF THEORY: WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IS SIMPLY TO
STUDY
CAREFULLY WHAT IS THE CURRENT WAY TO MAKE CORRECT
DECISONS
ON TESTING HYPOTHESE AND LEAVE, ONCE FOR ALL, THE
IDEA THAT
NULL HYPOTHESES CAN BE ACCEPTED.
DO NOT BE LAZY, DO STUDY CAREFULLY THIS POINT.

Luis Amaral Afonso [the moderator destroyer]

Appreciate how in a scrape is Jack Tomsky got: now he
switched to (in panic) a parameter estimation!!!
He is completely mischievous: statistical tests are
connected with confidence intervals (never with point
estimates).
The only decisions are: or reject H0, or fail to
reject it. Jack is not SUFFICIENTLY EXPERT at
Statistics theory to base his (imbecile) idea that a
Null Hypotheses could be accepted. The Confidence
Region being an *** interval *** no one is not
allowed (at all) to elect a single point as the one
defined by p=0.
THEREFORE ONE IS WELL UNABLE TO ascertain a parameter
is equal to ZERO (or any other FIXED VALUE).

Jack Tomsky (the OLD PEACOK) has not, by far,
sufficient theoretical expertise on Statistics to
change a well-established interpretative paradigm. BY
FAR!

Luis Amaral Afonso [the moderator destroyer]