The Origins of R

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. Vance's
comments only deepen the "mystery."

If Mr. Vance was aware of the true origins of R, why did he choose to
misrepresent them in his article, which is what got the publicity and which
is the item that most people saw/read? Most right-thinking people don't,
wouldn't, or haven't taken the matter further than that. Their criticisms,
as mine have been, have been aimed at the NY Times and Mr. Vance's lack of
ethics. It also seems clear from Mr. Vance's comments that there was no
editorial or sub-editorial meddling.

The knee-jerk reaction ? Well, it is almost amusing to see how sensitive
some very hard-nosed individuals on this list can be, or have become.

Regards, Mark.

still to wait.

Duncan Murdoch-2 wrote:

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 "this was due to an editor or sub-editor," i.e.
the
botched article.

I think that what some people are waiting for are factual statements from
the parties concerned. Conjecture is, well, little more than conjecture.

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 
still to wait.

Duncan Murdoch

Regards, Mark.


Rolf Turner-3 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 given where credit is due. And that, I believe is the  
issue that
is getting (some) people hot and bothered. Certainly, Trevor Hastie  
in his
reply to the NY Times article, was not too happy with this aspect  
of the
story.

Granted, his comments were not made on this list, but the objection is
essentially the same. I would not call what he had to say "Mischief  
making"
or smacking of a "tabloid-esque level of slimy nastiness." The knee- 
jerk
reaction seems to be that this is a criticism of R. It is not. It is a
criticism of a poorly researched article.

It also is an undeniable and inescapable fact that most S code runs  
in R.

The problem is not with criticism of the NY Times article, although  
as Pat
Burns and others have pointed out this criticism was somewhat  
misdirected
and unrealistic considering the exigencies of newspaper editing.  The  
problem
was with a number of posts that cast aspersions upon the integrity of
Ihaka and Gentleman.  It is these posts that exuded tabloid-esque slimy
nastiness.

I am sure that Ross and Robert would never dream of failing to give  
credit
where credit is due and it is almost certainly the case that they  
explained
the origins of R in the S language to the writer of the NYT article  
(wherefrom
the explanation was cut in the editing process).

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.  To impugn the integrity of Ihaka  
and Gentleman,
because an article which *they didn't write* failed to mention this  
fact, is
unconscionable.

	cheers,

		Rolf Turner

######################################################################
Attention:\ This e-mail message is privileged and confid...{{dropped:9}}