ORIGINAL: bluebird2
More smoke and mirrors. What I refuted was your insertion of variables that were pure assumptions on your part.
So now that you backed yourself into a corner with a series of lies, you claim PGC stats are smoke and mirrors.
In my example I never claimed the numbers I used actually represented what happened in the state. It was simply a statistical demonstration of how much the sample size and distribution would have had to change in order to get a statewide decrease of 5%. But, the PGC data makes the example a mute point, because sample size and distribution did not shift as RSB claimed.
Wrong again Bluejob!
Just as you recently twisted things in your claim that we arent seeing bigger better bucks harvested, you did a similarmaneuver then.
You concocted your own formula designed specifically to "prove" that a 5% change was "impossible"(your words) from a shift in sampling and then added your own ingredients to the formula. I pointed out the flaws in that and everyone in that thread saw it. It was you who backed youself into the corner and you who lied.