|Male, outside||27||68 %|
|Male, inside||6||15 %|
|Female, outside||5||13 %|
|Female, inside||0||0 %|
|Don't care||2||5 %|
Well, I didn't get the results I was expecting, which I suppose means that I am following best practice by freely publishing experimental data that doesn't support my thesis, despite the inevitable damage to my professional reputation that will ensue.
Gratifyingly, despite this being a bikey, blokey sort of place, five ladies felt able to participate, and I welcome and salute their bravery in 'coming out of the bathroom'. What surprised me was that all of them said that they preferred their tissues to be mounted in the easy-to-use-if-a-little-less-aesthetic manner, which directly contradicts my original theory that ladies always want the free sheet to hang on the inside. I admit my error.
For the chaps, a whacking 82% were outsiders, which is what I would have expected to see. Way to go, lads. In a limited way, the 'male' results prove the theory that 'most men' prefer an outside deployment. The small number of female respondents who destroy the theory completely may be because the theory was wrong in respect of male/female preferences, or it may be the result of a small and unrepresentative sample. Further research is needed, but since my grant has run out I will have to leave that to others. I don't have the patience or computing power.
SCIENTIFIC ADVICE: don't go spending serious money on Brian's suggestion (see comments on original post) of an automatic, articulated toilet roll dispenser. Nothing is proven.
So, in summary:
Richard's blog: small data set, contrary results accepted, errors admitted, theory modified.
IPCC: small data set, contrary results ignored, errors obfuscated and denied, theory restated with added vehemence. Spend money on dealing with the problem now. Preferably to us and our friends. Oh, and anyone who disagrees vilified as planet-raping psycho nutjobs in the pay of Big Oil. So nerr.
Thanks to everyone who bothered to click.