Originally Posted by Sportstick

Other than the self-described "straw man" for the sake of the point, what specifically are you claiming is false?

Enlarging sample size does not reduce bias. Specifically note the problem and solution explanation at the end of the linked article.

http://stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx

If I have n=1,000 of 100% email contact respondents, the bias associated with email survey vs. paper mail survey is the same if I increase to n=10,000, but of the same sample design. I would reduce bias by modifying the methodology, even with the same sample size. There is a central tendency of the mean, and larger sample does reduce variance and make for a more robust analysis when seeking significance.

Originally Posted by c4004matic

You are saying that surveys are inherently statistically unreliable because they are inherently biased in one way or another, that is factually incorrect. There is a whole field of statistics who's purpose is to minimize survey bias.

Originally Posted by Sportstick

No, that's not what I am saying, actually the opposite. As the my prior comment responded to another post, I took their concern to the extreme to demonstrate the fallacy....a common basic debate technique. My second paragraph opened on the point that the prior technique was a "straw man"...set up to be knocked down. I work in the market research industry. I could hardly take the point you inferred.

Originally Posted by c4004matic

My bad

Originally Posted by dreamerak

You, can do what ever you want, As I said, I want a German car, maybe a C class,that's why I'm here. Have fun on the Mazda boards. Drove the Mazda 6(rental), I'm sorry, but no, don't believe everything you read, including CR, You do know that automotive journalism is a business, right?

Originally Posted by mihaelb

Oh, and I can certainly attest to something I read a few years back: if you put a Mazda in one of those quiet rooms used for recording music (the ones with foam on the walls), and you listen carefully, you can actually hear a Mazda rusting.
So whichever of these two publications gave Mazda a good rating for reliability isn't worth the paper it's printed on or webspace that it's taking up

Originally Posted by alsyli

Funny you should mention Mazdas rusting, since people have apparently complained of the same issue w/ MBs from the late 1990s:


http://www.benzworld.org/forums/w208...del-years.html

Originally Posted by alsyli

I've also driven a (much older) Mazda 6. And if you feel it wasn't sporty, then you and I have very different opinions about what makes a car enjoyable.

Originally Posted by alsyli

I enjoy my C quite a bit but am not blind to its faults. Perhaps one day you'll be able to do the same, once you're actually an MB owner....

Originally Posted by mihaelb

I just have higher expectations out of an expensive German brand than a Japanese mid-range (brand wise) one. But I still expect cars to last a certain amount of time without major issues, or rusting. Even the Mazdas.

Originally Posted by dreamerak

Given your choice of the C250, I agree 100%

Originally Posted by dreamerak

All cars have faults, I thought everyone knew this?

Originally Posted by alsyli

These will be my final statements to you specifically, since you obviously choose to engage at a juvenile level.

If you had been posting here longer, you would know that I don't find the C250 Sport to be at all sporty. I've said so many times in this forum and the W204 forum.



I assume you would know better than most since you choose to drive a crude yet expensive variant of what is, at its core, a cheap economy car.

Different strokes for different folks.