Hey John, thanks for the compliments. I'm actually thrilled that anyone actually read one of my posts Also enjoy the fact checking and grammeramericalositous analysis. So let's get into it

"Relative to the following statements regarding persistence the language above is definite and conflictory." - me

dictionary.reference.com/browse/conflictory

Hey, I actually thought I made up the word "conflictory" but drat, when I looked it up I found that in fact this is a valid term and even more, it means what I created it to mean ;~{ In either case, I have no problem making up new words as long as I am confident anyone would know what it means (nah, seriously, not a good idea...don't need to pollute the language anymore than it already is).

As for the semantics and general meaning of my statement, I believe that the clause regarding persistence in the first paragraph conflicted (conflictated?) in relation to subsequent clauses in that a definite value in duration of persistance was made:

"Some of the behavioural differences persisted for 24 weeks."

Relative to:

"The latter differences persisted throughout the test
period of 24 weeks"

and

"persisted for at least 24 weeks"

See, no wonder someone would wonder, do they mean "24 weeks" or "at least 24 weeks"...big difference huh?

I guess that "persisted for 24 weeks" could be interpreted as "at least 24 weeks" but could also be taken as an absolute value of 24 weeks, no more, no less. In that, I believe it is actually worse than indefinite, it is ambiguous - in either case I was in error then as in fact by the first interpretation it is indeed an indefinite duration. I truly believe it is best to be consistently explicit in such quantification and leave nothing to interpretation.

Anecdotal?

"Very interesting observation albeit purely anecdotal" - me

dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal

def - "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

I surely hope this comment wasn't taken as a personal assault...anything but. I very much trusted and enjoyed Kevin's detailed, well substantiated and informative account. On the other hand, there is no indication of a "systematic scientific evaluation". Rather I would say it was a careful and detailed observation with fascinating implications for further study.

This is fun healthy discussion and I'm always ready for, in need of and receptive to correction.

Cheers,
Brad

[ Show Entire Thread ]