 |
 |
Just wondering, is there not still value in looking at data from the folks gathered here with the understanding that the 'sample' is not fully representative? We are already conveniently 'gathered' in one place - it seems a pity not to fully utilise such serendipity... -----Original Message----- From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ned Gardner Sent: 19 January 2006 15:10 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: chemicals/Dee Rick McGirr wrote:........... I wonder how much data could be compiled from the archives of this list. Plowing through mountains of old emails could be informative, as well as tedious. Rick: The problem is that everyone on the list is self selecting and we do not represent a true cross section of PWP. I like to think that the 10-20 percent of PWP whose cheese has slipped off their cracker are not represented here. As to looking at "mountains of old emails" this is something our government is currently doing. Oh and please pass the cheese. Ned ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 18/01/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 19/01/2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn