Well, if we are chiming in with opinions, I agree with Martin. It's
easy to hit delete. It's hard to figure which discussions might get
interesting to whom. I'm on a couple other mailing lists at least
tangentially related to statistics (SAS-L, Rhelp, STAT-L) and, on all of
them, the discussions are often illuminating.
OTOH, I am not running this list, and, if the list owners want it to be
that we (primarily) respond only to the poster, then I will do that
(except in cases such as
this, which concern the nature of the list itself).
Peter
Peter L. Flom, PhD
Assistant Director, Statistics and Data Analysis Core
Center for Drug Use and HIV Research
National Development and Research Institutes
71 W. 23rd St
www.peterflom.com
New York, NY 10010
(212) 845-4485 (voice)
(917) 438-0894 (fax)
>>> Sarah Kirk <[log in to unmask]> 02/19/04 11:27 AM >>>
I am afraid I agree with Mr Burrell. The discussion re the distribution
of
1/X only helped those who were interested and filled up the "inbox" of
those
who were not. Maybe the original sender of a query should copy all
those
who replied to any future correspondences so that those who expressed an
opinion can discuss it away from the list.
Regards
Sarah Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sewell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 February 2004 16:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Some Reminders
At 21:01 17/02/2004 +0000, Quentin L. Burrell wrote:
>I think that the recent exchanges re the distribution of 1/X justify
>Andrew's "official" line and highlight the weaknesses of Martin's
>alternative.
Au contraire, in this rule-breaking incident the iterative, accountable
and
self-correcting process helped. Osher Doctorow will remain the scourge
of
mailing lists regardless of protocol.
Regards
Martin
PS You've highlighted the weakness of the rule by being forced to break
it
in order to discuss it.
|