In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo, you are wasting my time. Your own answers contradict your own
statements. This is what you previously said: "In contrast, your assumption
that *all* people are *always*
compliant has". Now you attempt to "change the goal posts" by stating ":
"That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant." Notice
first the use of "*all*" and then "essentially all" - I did not say either
statement as you then admit when you then say: " Sure, you don't claim 100%
but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%.
Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%?"

H. Kuska reply: the reader can easilly use his/her browsers "find" command
to search where I state that: "*assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%.
you ".
You then say: "Tell me Henry......." - I explained to you that this was a
"real world" study that indicates the risk in the real world. One does not
*assume* any particular number as it has no bearing on a "real world"
situation.


Henry, you cannot have it both ways. You argue that this cohort should
be considered compliant because they are licensed. You state that actually
attempting to determine compliance cannot be done in the "real world,"
in spite of the fact that it is done all the time.

When I ask how compliant you think people you should assume they
are you then change your tune and claim that you do *not* believe
they should be considered compliant.

Fine. If they should not be assumed to be compliant, then they do
not meet my criteria of "used as directed." If they should be
assumed to be compliant, then my question of *how* compliant you
think they should be assumed to be is appropriate.

Which is it, Henry? Do you assume they are compliant? If not,
then we agree that they cannot be assumed to be compliant, and
do not meet the criteria.

And your repeated assertion that one cannot test for compliance
in "the real world" is simply wrong.


billo