On Wed 19 Jan 2005 09:22:02a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed 19 Jan 2005 07:00:37a, Nancy Young tittered and giggled, and
>> giggled and tittered, and finally blurted out...
>
>>> It was just a blurb on the news on Good Morning America. No details,
>>> I'm sure we'll see more about that in the near future. It's just
>>> amusing to me, another example of the sky is falling, wait, no it
>>> isn't ... eggs are bad for you ... wait,
>>> eggs are good for you. It's as if they can't wait to deliver bad news
>>> without enough study of the subject.
>
>> Gotcha, thanks. I always thought the egg thing was funny.
>
> Actually, it goes sorta back to something I've talked about in the past.
> People from a certain country down under would troll us about our
> weight, and my thing was ... exactly where are (whoever they are)
> they (the people who study stuff like that) getting these statistics.
> Like ... I don't know how much I weigh, they sure as hell don't.
> I actually took to looking around to observe. Didn't seem to me
> that 65% of people were obese.
>
> That's why I thought it was funny that they miscalculated
> something.
>
> Then there is ... Americans eat 300 pounds of (whatever) a year.
> Exactly how do you know this? I would sincerely like to see the
> methodology behind this one. Say it's lettuce. I might buy that
> much, are they there weighing the lettuce I wind up throwing out?
> No. Because I bought a fast food burger and fries, do they know
> I split it with the old man or just had a few bites and threw out
> the rest? No. It's just a subject that amuses me. That's all.
>
> nancy

That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I mean,
when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure what
people are "really" doing?

Wayne