Having done a standard deviation or two myself, I have to agree entirely with you. I could have taken the number of times the word "the" appeared in the descriptions to "prove" a point about something. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm not sure the I saw "Foxpro" as often as I saw "Visual Foxpro." Foxpro must be dead! <g>


>The - how should I say - suspicious part is that "incredibly scientific" is meant to be an exaggeration - and one of the reasons is precisely the reason you mention: the sample is too small.
>
>Of course, there are also other problems with these "incredibly scientific" samples, even for larger samples: for example, do the people who know about the Universal Thread tend to represent an accurate cross-section of the population in general (or in this case, of the part we are interested in: potential employees)? In even the most serious statistical analysis, there can always be doubts about this particular point: how well the sample represents the total population.
>
>>You're right, I did not read well.
>>
>>>That might explain my very tongue-in-cheek title to this thread. It was not meant literally.