View Single Post
Old 09-10-2010, 07:25 AM   #46
charleski
Wizard
charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.charleski ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,196
Karma: 1281258
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: PRS-505
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
Your point was that the gender break down of Booker winners contained no evidence of gender bias. I re-framed your claim to point out that it implied that about two thirds of winners were men. Does that not prove, just as a statistical matter, that the Booker is biased in favour of men?
No it doesn't. Any variance in favour of either gender is insignificant.
charleski is offline   Reply With Quote