[R] [OT] 1 vs 2-way anova technical question
jwiley.psych at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 10:35:48 CET 2011
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Giovanni Azua <bravegag at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Bert Gunter wrote:
>> we disagree is that I think data analysts with limited statistical
>> backgrounds should consult with local statisticians instead of trying
>> to muddle through on their own thru lists like this. This is not meant
> I think that people lacking reading skills should not be subscribed in lists like this one, bullying and creating confusion around.
I agree with you that emails lists are not the place for those who cannot read.
> I will asks as many times as I want/need and the way I use lists if none of your f. b.
It is true the way you use general lists is not our business, but the
R-help list is a community and there are community rules. One of
those is not to ask questions that are primarily about a lack of
statistical understanding (although they are not strictly prohibited).
Your original post suggests that you knew this, "I know there is
plenty of people in this group who can give me a good answer :)" but
chose to ignore it. Despite this, Bert was generous enough to give
you some suggestions, perhaps not what you wanted but useful tips
You may ask many times, but failing to follow guidelines and thinly
veiled profanity are unlikely to endear you to the people here who can
offer useful suggestions. Further, to me, your comment below falls
under the, "Ad hominem comments are absolutely out of place." Note
that no loop hole or pass is given for the behavior of other parties.
That is, ad hominem comments do not become "in place" if someone else
is rude enough or makes them first.
Regarding your suggestion that the list be split into a "beginner" and
"advanced" list, while that is one option, your original question was
appropriate for neither. It was, however, very appropriate for a
statistics list (e.g., http://stats.stackexchange.com/).
>> to be arrogance on my part -- though it may seem to come across that
>> way -- but rather a plea for good science. I believe that bad
>> statistics --> bad science, a problem that I see as pervasive and
>> inimical to scientific progress, especially in today's data saturated
>> But enough of my off topic B.S. Please reply privately to not waste
>> yet more space here (positively or negatively -- stone throwers need
>> to catch them, too).
> You are actually full of your off topic prime matter, you arrogant prick.
To me, this is extremely offensive. Disagreements are inevitable, but
we can strive to keep them civil.
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
I agree with Rolf Turner's idea that it would be nice if there was a
mechanism to limit these sorts of posts.
Ph.D. Student, Health Psychology
Programmer Analyst II, ATS Statistical Consulting Group
University of California, Los Angeles
More information about the R-help