>> >>> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy >>>> nastiness.
Hi Rolf, It is good to have clarification, for you wrote "..,the postings...," tarring everyone with the same brush. And it was quite a nasty brush. It also is conjecture that "this was due to an editor or sub-editor," i.e. the botched article. I think that what some people are waiting for are factual statements from the parties concerned. Conjecture is, well, little more than conjecture. Regards, Mark. Rolf Turner-3 wrote: > > > On 4/02/2009, at 8:15 PM, Mark Difford wrote: > >> >>>> Indeed. The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy >>>> nastiness. >> >> Indeed, indeed. But I do not feel that that is necessarily the >> case. Credit >> should be given where credit is due. And that, I believe is the >> issue that >> is getting (some) people hot and bothered. Certainly, Trevor Hastie >> in his >> reply to the NY Times article, was not too happy with this aspect >> of the >> story. >> >> Granted, his comments were not made on this list, but the objection is >> essentially the same. I would not call what he had to say "Mischief >> making" >> or smacking of a "tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness." The knee- >> jerk >> reaction seems to be that this is a criticism of R. It is not. It is a >> criticism of a poorly researched article. >> >> It also is an undeniable and inescapable fact that most S code runs >> in R. > > The problem is not with criticism of the NY Times article, although > as Pat > Burns and others have pointed out this criticism was somewhat > misdirected > and unrealistic considering the exigencies of newspaper editing. The > problem > was with a number of posts that cast aspersions upon the integrity of > Ihaka and Gentleman. It is these posts that exuded tabloid-esque slimy > nastiness. > > I am sure that Ross and Robert would never dream of failing to give > credit > where credit is due and it is almost certainly the case that they > explained > the origins of R in the S language to the writer of the NYT article > (wherefrom > the explanation was cut in the editing process). > > Those of us on this list (with the possible exception of one or two > nutters) > would take it that it goes without saying that R was developed on the > basis > of S --- we all ***know*** that. To impugn the integrity of Ihaka > and Gentleman, > because an article which *they didn't write* failed to mention this > fact, is > unconscionable. > > cheers, > > Rolf Turner > > ###################################################################### > Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}} > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The-Origins-of-R-tp21820910p21839399.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.