A couple of days ago you said: "... and you quote M&S ..... and Fackler, a moderately controversial pair, to support your non-assertions."
M&S are Marshall and Sanow. I'm confused. Never mind, it is nice to see that you feel that they are at least worth a visit. So do I, whether they got it right or not.
I can easily understand that you might still be confused.
This is a very old subject here in the States. I don't even see a logical contradiction between my two posts, but I understand that you kind of think that I am pro-Marshall or anti-Marshall. A more careful reading of my posts would indicate that I had (not yet) stated my side, if any, in the controversy. The controversy exists between what M&S write, on the one hand, and what Fackler writes, on the other hand. Some agree with one side, some with the other, some not completely with either.
I'm not sure why you are concerned at all with what I think, but, since you seem to be, I will tell you that I agree with those who believe that the "sample" selection by M&S borders on the ridiculous. Furthermore, I have been around long enough to observe the disappearing data occasionally referred to. I did not need Fackler or his friends to point them out to me.
I am 65 years old, not strikingly smart, but not strikingly stupid, either, and I will tell you that I have a good feeling for Evan Marshall. The obvious fact that he doesn't know s*** about statistics (I DO know a LITTLE about the subject) doesn't change that. He has a lot of good info to pass on, perhaps even about ammo choice, but a statistician he ain't. Nor is his buddy Sanow, even though he obviously has taken a few junior college courses in the subject. Still, Evan Marshall has a lot of experience, and the fact that he is not a statistician should not keep us from listening to him and learning what we can.
I don't think that anything above is inconsistent with my earlier postings.