@Bash-Me-Too Include @Bash-Me-Too in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Time out: It is very interesting that you singled me out to say “time out.” I wonder why you did not deliver this message to any of the other posters? Let me guess, I’m “disruptive” because I speak with facts, quotes and references. Like Spoon said, your bottom side might be exposed since the facts are coming out (and you don’t like it, so let’s try to shut him up). Wow, this sounds like Watergate.
@Bash-Me-Too Include @Bash-Me-Too in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Ed: There you go again, trying to use the “SPC” argument to disparage a “Process Qualification” method. Dr. Harry is not trying to “detect outliers.” Dr. Harry’s approach is to “back compute” a “process capability model” that serves as a “target” for qualifying a process. Harry is simply saying that your short-term “process qualification model” must be tighter than what you actually need in order to account for random sampling error during the qualification sampling. This has nothing to do with “control charts” or “detecting mean shifts” as you and Stan have falsely said so many times. Shewhart has nothing to do with what Dr. Harry proposes. He has a very good way to qualify a process. Its better than anything I’ve come across over the years. Maybe if you look at it from this perspective (and not the control chart viewpoint), you might actually grasp what he is trying to say.
@Bash-Me-Too Include @Bash-Me-Too in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Stan: You make my point very well. If you really believe I’m this guy Reigle (spelling corrected), then how would you know other than “opinion” or “feelings.” Tell us your facts. Of course you can provide no facts or proof, so its just more of your wasteful opinon and feelings.
@Real-Reigle Include @Real-Reigle in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Stan and Others, I have stayed on the sidelines for this long and informative thread allowing others to be on the receiving end of a bashing. Those purporting to be me and those that have attributed posts to me, none are the true Reigle and none have been authored by me. Stan, if you don’t believe it is me, remember the joke about the size of our boats being surrogates for something else. Dr. Harry’s position has never been that the 1.5 shift is a universal absolute. Both he and Richard have offered it up as an explanation to be used under very strict assumptions. It is the general SS population that has created the myth of the shift. All the tirades about fraud and lies blows things way out of proportion and are unbecoming of what suppossedly is a professional forum. For those that have quoted out of context and applied their own interpretations please obtain and read in their entirety, some of the latest writings by Dr. Harry. Regards
@Time-Out Include @Time-Out in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Bash Me Too, You sound more and more like a bad case of “unanswered love” … You may want to try an online dating service … unless of course you want to hook up with JoeBB. But it looks like you even turned him off … But don’t give up hope: Maybe there is someone out there who’ll find you charming or even lovely :-).
@Bash-Me-Too Include @Bash-Me-Too in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Time Out: Your right. I do have a bad case of “unanswered love.” My love for facts, truth and basic human respect goes unanswered on this forum. I have no doubt that many of the true “facts” will stay buried under the rubble of opinons and the hamful intents of others. Even your last post contains elements of “bashing,” but followed with “:)” Beyond doubt you will attribute your harshness and disrespect as “being humorus,” even though its done at the cost of others. It is very unlikely the character of this forum will change, at least until the site policy becomes “constant respect for others.”
@Time-Out Include @Time-Out in your post and this person will be notified via email.
Well, “Bash” me “Too” (nomen est omen, Freud would have gotten a kick out of the name you chose for yourself :-), your “bashing” is way too promiscuous for my taste. You go have Reigle bash you too (with a spoon?) … not quite sure where you’ll put the spoon, but then I don’t have to know all of the “facts” about your obsessions with “bashing”. … Stick around, your self-revelations are quite amusing :-).
@Ed Include @Ed in your post and this person will be notified via email.
OK Reigle. We have shown that Harry’s Chi Square approach is rubbish. We have not mentioned “outliners” . No “SPC” argument has been described. We have not mentioned “mean shifts”. I have no idea where you get this stuff. Perhaps you can spell out for us in detail exactly what you think “Harry is trying to say.” ?
@Ed Include @Ed in your post and this person will be notified via email.
You said “Dr. Harry’s position has never been that the 1.5 shift is a universal absolute” So what is it then ? Why not save everybody a lot of time and just admit that it doesn’t exist ?
@Doppelt-gemoppelt Include @Doppelt-gemoppelt in your post and this person will be notified via email.
bash me too, what a nutcase: “universal absolute” … “doppelt gemoppelt haelt besser” :-))))) curious what gooey’s superbe internet searching skills will find on this one ….
.
.