----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 7:28 PM Subject: Re: More hypocrisy on display than skin
> On Nov 24, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Strippers at a local "high class" > > strip club, had put together a charity fund, and then voted to have it > > go > > to groups of sexually abused children. Teri talked to them, and they > > all > > had been sexually abused as children. > > Do you find this surprising? I mean, the group self-selected. Of course > they were all abuse victims. They set up a charity to *help* abuse > victims. But it doesn't follow that all strippers are abuse victims, or > even more likely to be abuse victims. Your sample size is *far* too > small and is *not* random. That's not the scenario. The strippers at club XXX decided to donate a portion of their tip money to charity. It was not There is a general fund that all strippers were invited to contribute to. Teri said the overwhelming majority did. Then they voted, as a group of workers at that one club, to sent it where they did. > Suppose a group of CPAs put together a charity to assist victims of > mugging. Would you be even remotely surprised to learn that most CPAs > who participated in or gave to that group were themselves victims of > mugging? Probably you wouldn't. But you would be very off center to > suggest that this locally high correlation of CPAs to mugging > victimhood meant that a "preponderance" or even "overwhelming" numbers > of CPAs were victims of mugging. But, if it was the CPAs at company XYZ who did that, then one would have to ask why CPAs who are mugged all work at company XYZ. The club I was thinking of was one of the top 5 "name" clubs in the business, so self selection by club would have to be restricted to 1 out of 5. My references do have studies and numbers quoted. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
