[R] Terminology and canonical statistical user literature

2004-03-16 Thread Lutz Prechelt
Brian Ripley wrote (to somebody asking about effect sizes): ... Given that, I wonder if you are used to standard terminology. Good point. But I think for many of us there is more behind that. I personally belong to an (apparently fairly large) group of R users who may be enthusiastic, but are

Re: [R] Terminology and canonical statistical user literature

2004-03-16 Thread Tom Blackwell
Dr. Prechelt - It's been my observation that there IS no book of the sort you have asked for. There have been many attempts over the last 75 years to write such a book. Attempts by some very smart and articulate people . . . and no such attempt that I know of has succeeded. I am forced to

Re: [R] Terminology and canonical statistical user literature

2004-03-16 Thread partha_bagchi
/2004 06:44 AM To: R Help [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:[R] Terminology and canonical statistical user literature Brian Ripley wrote (to somebody asking about effect sizes): ... Given that, I wonder if you are used to standard terminology. Good point. But I

Re: [R] Terminology and canonical statistical user literature

2004-03-16 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Lutz Prechelt wrote: Brian Ripley wrote (to somebody asking about effect sizes): ... Given that, I wonder if you are used to standard terminology. Good point. But I think for many of us there is more behind that. But you have completely missed my point. Asking for