Article View: comp.groupware
Article #310Re: Consensus Journals:Nonexistent journals based upon peer consensus
From: Greg Lindahl
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 1990 01:14
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 1990 01:14
17 lines
1317 bytes
1317 bytes
In article <18637@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au> jim@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Jim Underwood) writes: >><Then your method is complete crap. > >>Does anyone else find this retort as offensive as I do? > >Sorry Brad! It seems fair enough comment to me. >"Consensus" means "agreement of opinion on the part of all concerned" (OED) >How do you expect to represent this statistically ??????? This is known as a "dictionary flame". The person who was talking about statistical concensus obviously has a different definition. It's constructive to ask him what it is, but it isn't constructive to call it crap. Fair has nothing to do with being constructive. Why do Usenet posters sometimes find it necessary to be twits?
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1990Nov21.011445.13274@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8fReferences:
<27172@cs.yale.edu> <5802@stpstn.UUCP> <18637@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f From: gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) Newsgroups: comp.groupware Subject: Re: Consensus Journals:Nonexistent journals based upon peer consensus Message-ID: <1990Nov21.011445.13274@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Date: 21 Nov 90 01:14:45 GMT References: <27172@cs.yale.edu> <5802@stpstn.UUCP> <18637@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au> Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia Lines: 17