I second the opinion (or is it 50th the opinion?) that we shouldn't force these lists to be too structured. I much prefer simply getting multiple emails and reading each one. It is far easier than reading one long complex email. Besides, I agree with Prof. Glen that there needs to be an opportunity to discuss and refute misconceptions. I think informal discussions, even using loose terminology, can sometimes be refreshing and can be quite a learning experience for those who want to learn the 'correct' terminology as well. The entire reason for me to sign up to a list was so that I could learn something new through discussion, not to receive a pre-digested news report.
P >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen >Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:40 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [edstat] jjliu's posting > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... >> It seems to me that >> replies should not be sent to the entire list but rather to >the poster. The >> poster than should be able to summarize the responses and >advise the list. I >> get many (possibly too many) repeat postings, often listing >three or four >> responses to a posting. I would, to help me in terms of >time, like to see the >> poster receive responses directly and then have that person >post a single, >> summarized list of the responses. > >The disadvantage is that then >(i) I would often reply to posts that have had >perfectly good responses already >(ii) Mistaken replies can be disagreed with immediately >rather than in retrospect (which may often be too late >to help anyone, or worse, the error may not be challenged >at all if the original poster fails to follow up to the >group, as often would happen) >(iii) It is the discussions that follow on from the >questions that bring the most value to me. Even the >posts I disagree with strongly can often prove >very helpful in clarifying just what is the crucial >point in some issue. > >Once I got my PhD, my opportunities to learn more >statistics in a formal setting became quite limited; >I have plenty of informal sources of education of >course, including journals. But for me one of the >most useful sources of ideas and understanding is >the discussions in sci.stat.*. For me taking discussion >off line and then summarising back would make this >a much less useful resource. > >That's not to say off-list replies aren't useful; >often they're the best way to deal with certain >things. I would just prefer that it not be entrenched >as the standard for the group. > >Glen >. >. ================================================================= >Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about >the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: >. http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . >================================================================= > . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
