Personally, I am grateful for all the polls, (and and all the pollsters) whether they are conducted in accordance with modern statistical theory or not. After all, we are not trying to compare genome mapping techniches or solve the mystery of Jimmy Hoffa.  (I do have a theory on that one...)  
Many times a quick and dirty survey is just the ticket for discovering a new kind of blade or reagent we might want to try.  

	
 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cliff Berger [mailto:cberger@decal-bone.com] 
Sent:	Friday, June 27, 2003 13:31
To:	'Vinnie Della Speranza'; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
Cc:	'Donna McClellan'
Subject:	RE: the Results are in!

Actually you can't even conclude that. This opinion poll was not
conducted in accordance with modern statistical theory. Polling can't
work without random sampling. Can you tell us what the margin of error
is for your findings? I only thought that as members of a scientific
community we all should understand that the results you claim are
reliable are completely unreliable.  

I only commented on this from a scientific point of view. I have no
interest in blades.  I don't make them. I don't sell them. I don't use
them.  

Furthermore, I never said that opinions are meaningless. I only said
that the manner in which you gathered, tallied and presented the
information is meaningless.  Your 4:1 margin claim has no basis in
reality. 

Cliff Berger

-----Original Message-----
From: Vinnie Della Speranza [mailto:dellav@musc.edu] 
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:47 PM
To: cberger@decal-bone.com; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
Cc: Donna McClellan
Subject: Re: the Results are in!

Cliff,
you are looking for science where there can be none. I asked the list
for the preferences (which are subjective opinions) of those who have
evaluated different blades. The most that can be concluded from this
poll is that more people buy AccuEdge (by a 4:1 margin) than other
brands. Since this blade costs more, I would presume that those using it
feel that the additional cost is worth it.

Is it really your  intention  to tell those who responded to my query
that their op;inions are meaningless? All I did was count up the replies
and convert to a percent based upon the total number of responses to the
question.
Vinnie

>>> Cliff Berger  06/27/03 11:24AM >>>
Vinnie, 

In fairness to all the companies making blades, and to those who are
using
them as well,  everyone should be aware that your   <> has has
no
statistical merit whatsoever.   This has not been a science behind your
poll
in completely skewed so the results are meaningless.



-- 
Best regards,

Cliff Berger



> From: Vinnie Della Speranza 
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:52:32 -0400
> To: histonet@pathology.swmed.edu 
> Cc: Donna McClellan 
> Subject: the Results are in!
> 
> thank you to all who responded to my query re: best disposable
microtome
> blade
> 
> here are the results:
> 
> Accu-Edge   was recommeded by   55% of respondents. This blade was
> recommended more than four times more frequently than the next
highest
> recommended blade.
> 
> Richard Allen  was recommended by   12.5%  of respondents
> Sturkeywas recommended by   12.5%  of respondents
> Shandon was recommended by  10%  of respondents
> Surgipath was recommended by   5%   of respondents
> DuraEdge was recommended by   5%   of respondents
> 
> 
> 
> Vinnie Della Speranza
> Manager for Anatomic Pathology Services
> Medical University of South Carolina
> 165 Ashley Avenue  Suite 309
> Charleston, SC 29425
> Ph: 843-792-6353
> fax: 843-792-8974
> 






Confidentiality Note:

The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, protected by applicable legal privileges, or constitute non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.