On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 3:27:13 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.

Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
a consultant.

Yes, but a couple of people in this group insist that the only reason I
favor good lights is because I am getting paid by light companies. The
fact that it isn't true doesn't matter to them. They will come up with
any excuse they can think of to try to ignore the data.

No worries, I do not think you are a paid shill - just deluded...............

Jeff showed himself to be extremely knowledgeable of statistics and noted the chief problem with the study. They did NOT show actual numbers because Reelights could not afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of free lights..

So this study was probably confined to perhaps a thousand and the change in accidents was in fact statistically irrelevant. So taken in pure percentages and presented as if it had meaning it makes for a good sales pitch and gives some undergraduate a paper to write.