Note followups. Please remove rec.woodworking from follow-ups.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 15:51:36 -0700, the opaque
clearly wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.

Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
chart would be inscrutable.

frown Oh, never mind. big sigh

Uh, what is bothering you? If you think some feature of the chart
was selected to deceive, why not point it out instead of making
ambiguous general statements that don't look to be relevant
to THIS particular plot?



As it is, the range appears tobe
chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
within comfortable margins.

BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
of origin?

Would the range of the chart on a page be the same with smaller
increments,

No, that's why I don;t understand how you sent from 'increments'
to range, eithout explaining what aspect of either you though had
been jiggered deceptively.

Fred? I didn't change the subject, you merely found a
way to argue semantics. But, hey, if you want to Chicken Little it,
feel free. Gotcher tinfoil headgear?

Perhaps you can make a criticism that addresses specific features
of the plot so somebody other than yourself can tell WTF it is to
which you refer?

Is your opinion is the range too large or too small?

Which and why? What range do you think would be proper?

To what 'increments' do you refer, and what 'increment size'
do you think would be proper?


--snip--

If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
the reader.

One of many criticisms. EOF, bubba.


THAT one is plainly meaningless. How about some others?

--

FF