| Male, outside | 27 | 68 % |
| Male, inside | 6 | 15 % |
| Female, outside | 5 | 13 % |
| Female, inside | 0 | 0 % |
| Don't care | 2 | 5 % |
| Total | 40 | 100 % |
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.
I must have missed this. Bikey bloke though is good. I don't trust a man who has never gone a bit bikey or gone through something just as dangerous like writing for the Catholic Herald in his time. A man of any sensitivity should flirt with doom. If he retires thereafter to his Horlicks and his slippers that is fine. But at least he has lived enough with damned things to know that the damned things could so easily have killed him. He has been tested.
ReplyDeleteLife without risk is no life at all, which is what is planned for us these days. The clever, human thing is to control risks to a level where we feel happy taking them. It's something we do for ourselves, and where we take any consequences that arise. In other words, it's being alive. Safety rules, while superficially appealing, in fact stop us learning and prevent us from living a full life, with all its consequences.
ReplyDelete"IPCC: small data set, contrary results ignored, ....."
ReplyDeleteFor them, 'contrary' results mean they can demand more & greater grants, for additional research, to 'isolate' & 'correct' the 'errors'.
Where's my grant, then?
ReplyDeleteI said 'male inside' because I've found that there's less chance of spraying the hanging toilet paper when I get home from the pub drunk and am bursting for a wee wee if it's against the wall out of the way. Science in action.
ReplyDeletePractice always trumps theory. In theory. Another reason is that you might feel like falling and grab a free end for support, only to do an Andrex Puppy all over the bathroom. (See post above this one for illustration.)
ReplyDeleteThey have overcome the insecurity associated with which way to go blog roll-wise in posh hotels in the US - they have paper dispensers in shiny chrome bodly labelled 'Motion activated'.
ReplyDeleteDerf
Bwahahahaha!
ReplyDeleteKeyboard!