[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results

[David P. Reed]

At 03:23 PM 5/26/2004, Joe Touch wrote:
>There are valid results that can be derived from data that cannot be 
>anonymized. That means the author should be willing to run tests for 
>others at least, IMO.

I think this means that you agree with my point...


>>If the issue is prevarication, anonymizing protects the prevaricator.
>
>If there exists an anonymization that doesn't kill the experiment, sure. 
>But that presumes:
>         a) such anonymization exists for that experiment
>         b) the data source is comfortable with the anonymization
>
>Neither necessarily applies.

Prevaricators (liars and fraudsters) are not normally considered good 
actor(YMMV!).   Hence I don't understand why you brought up data source 
comfort as a relevant presumption.   The prevaricator is protected in his 
bad actions whatever the data source's comfort.

I will use the simpler word liar in the future to prevent such confusion.