7 messages · Frank E Harrell Jr, Rolf Turner, Ista Zahn +3 more
I'm not sure why you posted the original note. I quit using SAS in 1991 and haven't needed it yet. Frank RogerJDeAngelis wrote
Sorry about the double post. But I keep getting 'post' rejections, so I resubmitted about an hour later.
----- Frank Harrell Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/SAS-and-R-complement-each-other-tp4660157p4660190.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it
in the R-help archives.
Is it just me?
Not that it really matters a damn --- I don't use SAS either --- I'm just
curious, and find the situation mysterious.
cheers,
Rolf
I'm not sure why you posted the original note. I quit using SAS in 1991 and haven't needed it yet. Frank RogerJDeAngelis wrote
Sorry about the double post. But I keep getting 'post' rejections, so I resubmitted about an hour later.
I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it in the R-help archives. Is it just me?
No, same here.
Not that it really matters a damn --- I don't use SAS either --- I'm just
curious, and find the situation mysterious.
cheers,
Rolf
On 03/04/2013 04:32 PM, Frank Harrell wrote:
I'm not sure why you posted the original note. I quit using SAS in 1991 and haven't needed it yet. Frank RogerJDeAngelis wrote
Sorry about the double post. But I keep getting 'post' rejections, so I resubmitted about an hour later.
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Rolf Turner <rolf.turner at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it in the R-help archives. Is it just me?
No, same here.
Think Nabble!!! (where there are often waits for approval) Peter Ehlers [...snip...]
Le mardi 05 mars 2013 ? 08:57 +1300, Rolf Turner a ?crit :
I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it in the R-help archives. Is it just me? Not that it really matters a damn --- I don't use SAS either --- I'm just curious, and find the situation mysterious.
A link to Nabble was at the end of Frank's reply: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/SAS-and-R-complement-each-other-tp4660157p4660190.html Probably not worth a read, though (especially because the message only talks about... SAS, not R). Regards
On 03/04/2013 04:32 PM, Frank Harrell wrote:
I'm not sure why you posted the original note. I quit using SAS in 1991 and haven't needed it yet. Frank RogerJDeAngelis wrote
Sorry about the double post. But I keep getting 'post' rejections, so I resubmitted about an hour later.
______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
On 2013-03-04 12:04, Ista Zahn wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Rolf Turner <rolf.turner at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it in the R-help archives. Is it just me?
No, same here.
Think Nabble!!! (where there are often waits for approval)
"Think Nabble" is correct, however, that wait will take infinite time on some posts. There is now an automatic censoring process for Nabble posts that resemble the signatures of prior spambot attacks on Rhelp. It was known that some innocent posts would be affected, including, unfortunately, some of the posts from our most valued members if they happen to be posting from Nabble at the time. This eventuality was noted when those filters were installed. In this case Frank saw it on Nabble and gave a perfectly valid reply that was not censored. The moderation queue was getting 20 or thirty postings that on cursory review were valid, but which turned out on investigation to be duplicates of prior Nabble-mediated posts and the only new content was bogus advertising. The moderators were not volunteering to do investigation of all such posts.
David Winsemius Alameda, CA, USA
On Mar 4, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Peter Ehlers wrote:
On 2013-03-04 12:04, Ista Zahn wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Rolf Turner <rolf.turner at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
I never saw the "original note" nor its resubmission. Nor could I find it in the R-help archives. Is it just me?
No, same here.
Think Nabble!!! (where there are often waits for approval)
"Think Nabble" is correct, however, that wait will take infinite time on some posts. There is now an automatic censoring process for Nabble posts that resemble the signatures of prior spambot attacks on Rhelp. It was known that some innocent posts would be affected, including, unfortunately, some of the posts from our most valued members if they happen to be posting from Nabble at the time. This eventuality was noted when those filters were installed. In this case Frank saw it on Nabble and gave a perfectly valid reply that was not censored. The moderation queue was getting 20 or thirty postings that on cursory review were valid, but which turned out on investigation to be duplicates of prior Nabble-mediated posts and the only new content was bogus advertising. The moderators were not volunteering to do investigation of all such posts.
I probably should have said: "Think the _curse_ of Nabble!" Hey, that might make a great movie title: "The Curse of Nabble". Starring, of course, Peter Lorre, Christopher Lee and Boris Karloff, each of whom has at least one 'r' in his name. Peter Ehlers