>Magne Aldrin furnished the list with some topical yet statistically
>pertinent information. Martin Sewell posed an equally valid question, to
>which Dave Walshaw's responses were particularly valid from a
>statistical point of view. Although Allstat isn't a discussion list, I'd
>have been disappointed not to have seen what had to be said on this
>issue.
Thanks, and I think it's clear that many people share that last sentiment. In fact I almost never post to allstat, and although I was aware that my post might be classed as 'discussion', I felt that Magne's original post (which I found extremely useful) had been misrepresented, and I did not think it was in the interests of list-readers to leave that unchallenged.
>So Alison is right, shouldn't there be a discussion list for stuff like
>this? And if there is, do any of you lot know of such a list?
Well I don't think Alison *is* right. The point I made in my previous post related to statistics, not football. I have no interest in setting up or joining a football statistics discussion list. I like to hear about statistics as it relates to topical issues. These could be betting odds, football, politics, music, the law, or any number of topics. So what discussion list should I set up/join? Wasn't allstat originally set up to allow such sharing of views? Why is it called 'allstat'?
I think the most relevant comment on this topic so far has been Stuart Coles' second paragraph, and I copy it at the foot of this message. I think everyone should read it again. Unfortunately, allstat has become one of the biggest sources of irrelevant emails in my inbox, and I have only stayed on because of the occasional interesting post, such as the ones on world-cup probabilities and betting odds. I know from talking to colleagues that many feel the same about the list, and I'd be prepared to BET that those posts attracted more interest than most. I wonder if people really want the role of allstat to be that of a dry advertising space and information exchange?
Anyway I won't be leaving allstat just yet (unless I'm thrown off), and I will obey the rules as they are (by not posting). However I reserve the right to correct a misrepresentation, and this has been the purpose of my two posts; to correct the misrepresention of Magne's post in the first instance, and the misrepresentation of my own post in the second.
Dave
>Now, so far as the allstat debate goes, it always strikes me as funny that
>the messages that have the biggest effect of turning the list into a
>discussion list are those sent by people complaining that a particular
>thread has led to discussion (which usually just means there's been an
>exchange of statistical views outside of that particular person's
>interests). For what it's worth, imho, allstat would be a much more
>interesting place if it did carry discussion of this type rather than
>serve as an employment shop for pharmaceutical companies looking for
>statisticians to carry out their t-tests.
|