I'm not sure what point is being made here: the original question to which
my commendation of Orwell was addressed was "How can we get journalists to
report accurately what we say?".
I assume that the sender's concern was how to get the conclusions of radical
statisticians into public debate.
Obviously this has only a indirect connection with how debates on this list
should be conducted.
Nonetheless, brevity is always welcome -- though not if the price is leaving
obscure what one is getting at, precisely.
Julian
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shapiro [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 13 January 2001 11:44
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Gaia Statistics
>
>
>I'd be grateful if list discussion continues to have a tendency to
>expression and explanation.
>
>In this way, over time, it won't become too pious and confined. My
>Orwellian nightmare is that brevity of statement, bound up in career
>statistics, can easily descend into radical autistics. At
>the risk of
>contradiction, this will be in the year 2004.
>
>Apologies for any scansion that may have crept in.
>
>
>Ray Shapiro
>
|