[Quix]

Did you watch the program?

There were sufficient illustration of his process and type of analysis to be sufficiently convincing to me.

Sometimes I mix the 2 up--but I hope you enjoy your seeming affections for a type II error.

It still escapes me why you think it is so much more protective and righteous than a type I error.

In terms of the vast array of data points/puzzle pieces in this broad subject area, I'm quite comfortable that my analysis accounts for more than yours does.

You also conveniently avoid a number of points in my posts. That's OK. It must be tough.

[r9etb]

There were sufficient illustration of his process and type of analysis to be sufficiently convincing to me.

IOW, he did not actually show the enhanced document?