Consider yourself lucky!
I'm sure there are many people who would
prefer not to see their name in the NYT. ;-)
Murray Coooper
- Original Message -
From: "Duncan Murdoch"
To: "Mark Difford"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [R] T
Can we give this a rest (or take it offline)? This is the R-Help
mail list, and I fail to grasp how anyone is being helped to use R by
this endless discussion.
-Roy M.
**
"The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S.
Government or NOAA."
Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> So I'm not complaining, but the main problem I saw in his article was
>> that it didn't mention me. I knew Robert Gentleman (even had an office
>> next to him!) before he started R: surely that must have been a key
>> influence.
I am sorry to hear that. If I underst
On 2/5/2009 1:05 AM, Mark Difford wrote:
I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a
comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9. So those people have -27 days
Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course):
simply point doubters to the right
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
>> This of course does not mean that the current R should not acknowledge
>> its substantial S heritage, just that if you want to describe the early
>> history of R
>> accurately, you do need to choose your words rather more carefully.
Point taken, Peter. But I wan't tryin
> Does any student, or teacher for that matter care whether Newton or
Leibntiz
> invented calculas.
Students or teachers may not care, but Newton and Leibniz themselves were
pretty bitter about who should get credit for what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_v._Leibniz_calculus_controversy
I
Mark Difford wrote:
It would have been very easy for Mr. Vance to have written:
John M. Chambers, a former Bell Labs researcher who is now a consulting
professor of statistics at Stanford University, was an early champion. At
Bell Labs, Mr. Chambers had helped develop S, THE PROTOTYPE OF R, wh
>> If you have bug reports for a contributed package please take them up with
the maintainer,
>> not the list.
Of course, Wacek is right. His observations being made with a customary
needle-like precision. It's that old conundrum about how to have your cake
and still eat it.
Regards to all, Mar
Wacek,
If you have bug reports for a contributed package please take them up with the
maintainer, not the list.
-thomas
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
Ajay ohri wrote:
An amusing afterthought : What is a rival software (ahem!) was planting
this, hoping for a divide betw
Ajay ohri wrote:
> An amusing afterthought : What is a rival software (ahem!) was planting
> this, hoping for a divide between S and R communities.or at the very minimum
> hoping for some amusement. an assumption or even a pretense of stealing
> credit is one of the easiest ways of sparking intelle
Now that is an interesting line, Ajay, and may help to defuse some frayed
tempers.
Newton, of course, minded very much. And that, really, is the heart of the
matter. For R-people (and I am one of them, so I don't use the term
pejoratively), clearly, mind very much, too. But only about part of the
An amusing afterthought : What is a rival software (ahem!) was planting
this, hoping for a divide between S and R communities.or at the very minimum
hoping for some amusement. an assumption or even a pretense of stealing
credit is one of the easiest ways of sparking intellectual discord
Most users
>> I think that all appeared on January 8 in Vance's blog posting, with a
>> comment on it by David M Smith on Jan 9. So those people have -27 days
Then there was no need for vituperative comments (not from you, of course):
simply point doubters to the right place, as you have done. But Mr. Va
On 2/4/2009 3:53 PM, Mark Difford wrote:
>>> 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
Rolf,
Yes, that's what I was referring to as well…
Cheers!
Tom
Rolf Turner 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 gi
On 04-Feb-09 20:45:04, Nutter, Benjamin wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Just want to clarify that the nutters referred
>> >>> 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-
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.
Just want to clarify that the nutters referred to here are not the same
as the Nutters that bear my n
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)
Patrick Burns likely is closest to the truth in noting that the editing of
the NYT article was possibly savage. The author is probably fuming, and
can't do much or he'll not get future work.
I was a columnist for Interface Age and then a sub-editor for Byte in the
early 80s. If an ad came in close
Patrick Burns wrote:
> My reaction to the section of the original NYT
> article under discussion was that it was a
> disjointed mess due to editing rather than a slight
> to anyone anywhere.
I think that is pretty much spot on.
I can imagine Ross or Robert explaining why they couldn't use S-PLUS
It seems to me that the "other side" from John's
post here have complaints resulting from how
newspapers operate. While few readers here
are likely to have much direct experience with
newspapers, a lot (I presume) have experience
with submitting papers to journals.
Such experience is likely to i
Rolf Turner wrote:
> The postings exuded a tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness.
>
utterly self-ironic.
vQ
__
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/pos
>> 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 h
On 4/02/2009, at 2:00 PM, Thomas Adams wrote:
John,
I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" — I would
call
it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers &
contributors. "Mischief making" indeed!
Regards,
Tom
John Maindonald wrote:
In another threa
John,
I certainly had that same impression of "mischief making" — I would call
it trolling with the intent of trying to discredit R, its developers &
contributors. "Mischief making" indeed!
Regards,
Tom
John Maindonald wrote:
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been
In another thread on this list, various wild allegations have been
made, relating to the New York Times article on R. I object both to
the subject line and to the content of several of the messages, and
will not repeat or quote any of that content. It smacks to me of
mischief making.
Di
27 matches
Mail list logo