From Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no  Tue Feb 24 11:27:08 2009
From: Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no (Wacek Kusnierczyk)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:27:08 +0100
Subject: [Rd] [R] Semantics of sequences in R
In-Reply-To: <20090224175215.1336a820@berwin-nus1>
References: <8b356f880902221242r47cdb138w9b1ac05cc5e5e317@mail.gmail.com>	<49A1BFC7.9060503@stats.uwo.ca>	<8b356f880902221350q4a976bfr19b0d5b01a989250@mail.gmail.com>	<20090223113422.76cc1494@absentia>
	<49A255A5.1010506@idi.ntnu.no>	<20090223175623.6106add2@berwin-nus1>
	<49A27AF4.307@idi.ntnu.no>	<20090223192757.2ff7f629@berwin-nus1>	<49A2961C.3020405@idi.ntnu.no>
	<20090224001247.5d2e3db9@berwin5>	<49A2F89B.10900@idi.ntnu.no>
	<20090224160252.154a7d75@berwin-nus1>	<49A3B257.2000103@idi.ntnu.no>
	<20090224175215.1336a820@berwin-nus1>
Message-ID: <49A3CB7C.4090105@idi.ntnu.no>

Berwin A Turlach wrote:
>
> I am well aware of those fortunes and maybe you missed the one:
>
>   
>> fortune("Watson")
>>     
>
> Getting flamed for asking dumb questions on a public mailing list is
> all part of growing up and being a man/woman.
>    -- Michael Watson (in a discussion on whether answers on R-help
>       should be more polite)
>       R-help (December 2004)
>   

i did miss it.  i'm gladly including it in my collection of quotes
documenting your approach to your users.  thanks.

>
>> ah, so what's the difference between the way i pinpoint design flaws
>> and the way r gurus respond to people, so that i am running with a
>> chip on my shoulder, and they are being 'negatively
>> motivating/reinforcing' in didactic terms?  [...]
>>     
>
> Your goal is, presumably, that you want to have the design flaws
> fixed/discussed/&c.  The goal of the R gurus is to avoid having to
> waste their time on unproductive issues because people do not read
> documentation/behave contrary to how they are asked to behave/&c.
>
> To reach your goal, the controversial approach is counter productive.
> To reach their goal, the controversial approach can be quite effective.
>
>   

nice summary.  you rule, we crawl.

> Come on, read your own quote above:  "Shouldn't the tests have captured
> this?  I think you should have a check for every feature following from
> the docs",  If this is not "telling others that they should write such
> test", then what is?  
>   

employing the recent trick of duncan's, i'd say that i wasn't telling
anyone that they should do something.  i said 'i think', which is
explaining what i think, not telling to do.

but even without the trick, even if i said 'you should' instead of 'i
think you should', if you were not oversensitive, exaggerating, and
prejudiced, you would be able to read it as a suggestion.  we clearly
differ in our understanding of 'tell' -- and it's of course my fault, as
my english is certainly more unlike the official than yours.

vQ



[Rd] [R] Semantics of sequences in R
Wacek Kusnierczyk