On 26/01/2016 6:30 AM, S Ellison wrote:
Yet, the trend I've seen is one of increasing **R-not-help**, in that there are
many posts, often by new R users who get replies that not infrequently range
from just mildly off-putting to actively hostile:
Slightly surprised that in a debate postulated
> Yet, the trend I've seen is one of increasing **R-not-help**, in that there
> are
> many posts, often by new R users who get replies that not infrequently range
> from just mildly off-putting to actively hostile:
Slightly surprised that in a debate postulated on increasing 'meanness', no-one
There exists a fine line between being unintentionally rude, but helpful
and purposely putting someone down. -- H
On 25 January 2016 at 12:07, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 25/01/2016 2:45 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>> I disagree, and would argue that fails to take a
On 25/01/2016 2:45 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
I disagree, and would argue that fails to take a systemic view of this
kind of behaviour.
If individual commentators are acerbic and are only privately
reprimanded, from the perspective of everyone else it looks like the
acerbic reply was A-OK. Someone
...@nancy.inra.fr; r-help@r-project.org; frien...@yorku.ca
Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-help?
When we read acerbic replies we should remind the poster to reply in a more
moderate tone. On the other hand noting that the list is not intended to be a
source of answers to home work
--
> From: R-help [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Friendly
> Sent: January 24, 2016 5:43 PM
> To: Jean-Luc Dupouey; r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-help?
>
>
> On 1/23/2016 7:28 AM, Jean-Luc Dupouey wrote
To: Jean-Luc Dupouey; r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-help?
On 1/23/2016 7:28 AM, Jean-Luc Dupouey wrote:
> Dear members,
>
> Not a technical question:
But one worth raising...
>
> The number of threads in this mailing list, followin
st.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: R-help [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Friendly
> Sent: January 24, 2016 5:43 PM
> To: Jean-Luc Dupouey; r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-help?
>
>
> O
ce to new
>> users, and not just the ones invoking the negative feedback, that a
>> particular respondent may not represent the perspective of the list.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: R-help [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>>
ay not represent the perspective of the list.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: R-help [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>> Friendly
>> Sent: January 24, 2016 5:43 PM
>> To: Jean-Luc Dupouey; r-help@r-project.org
>> Subject
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:33:12 -0800
Hasan Diwan wrote:
> There exists a fine line between being unintentionally rude, but
> helpful and purposely putting someone down. -- H
The line is really not "fine" at all since it lies in that word
"purposely." Also, you've
On 25 January 2016 at 13:13, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 25/01/2016 3:33 PM, Hasan Diwan wrote:
>
>> There exists a fine line between being unintentionally rude, but helpful
>> and purposely putting someone down. -- H
>>
>
> I'm afraid I don't think your point is
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part; on the occasions where someone is
rude, all I see is...
I agree the public cautioning should be done by moderators, yes.
On 25 January 2016 at 16:13, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> On 25/01/2016 3:33 PM, Hasan Diwan wrote:
>>
>> There exists a
On 25/01/2016 3:33 PM, Hasan Diwan wrote:
There exists a fine line between being unintentionally rude, but helpful
and purposely putting someone down. -- H
I'm afraid I don't think your point is relevant. I didn't claim all the
people who were rude did it unintentionally. However, I don't
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:06:35 -0500
Oliver Keyes wrote:
> +1. And frankly I would like to suggest that there is another obvious
> solution here; pairing a set of guidelines around expected user
> behaviour with removing people from the mailing list, or moderating
> them, if
of the 'moderators')
-Original Message-
From: R-help [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Oliver Keyes
Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016 10:23 a.m.
To: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>
Cc: r-help <r-help@r-project.org>
Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-
ject.org>
Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-help?
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part; on the occasions where someone is rude, all I
see is...
I agree the public cautioning should be done by moderators, yes.
On 25 January 2016 at 16:13, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gm
gt;> to foster contention, but simply to provide some tangible reassurance
>> >> to new
>> >> users, and not just the ones invoking the negative feedback, that a
>> >> particular respondent may not represent the perspective of the list.
>> >>
>> &g
essage-
From: R-help [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On Behalf Of Michael Friendly
Sent: January 24, 2016 5:43 PM
To: Jean-Luc Dupouey; r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] R-help mailing list activity / R-not-help?
On 1/23/2016 7:28 AM, Jean-Luc Dupouey wrote:
Dear members,
Not a tec
I think this mailing list is wonderful and it has helped me a lot. In
fact, I am not sure I would be using R today if it was not for this
list.
Bob
On 1/24/2016 4:42 PM, Michael Friendly wrote:
On 1/23/2016 7:28 AM, Jean-Luc Dupouey wrote:
Dear members,
Not a technical question:
But one
On 1/23/2016 7:28 AM, Jean-Luc Dupouey wrote:
Dear members,
Not a technical question:
But one worth raising...
The number of threads in this mailing list, following a long period of
increase, has been regularly and strongly decreasing since 2010, passing
from more than 40K threads to less
21 matches
Mail list logo