Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

st: RE: urgency (again) [was: Re: statalist-digest V4 #4296]


From   Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   "'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: urgency (again) [was: Re: statalist-digest V4 #4296]
Date   Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:35:36 +0100

Thanks for this suggestion, which we will think about. Also, some people have sent in views privately, including very firm defences of the existing statement, which need consideration. 

I think the main point about claims of urgency is that they are futile in practice, quite apart from the irritation that they cause some of us. The main advice is: Don't do that, because it won't help and it may well harm your chances of getting a good answer. 

If anyone says that they would try to answer an urgent email more quickly, or more thoroughly, or rather than one not claiming urgency, then I am wrong; i.e. those people evidently would pay more attention to claims of urgency. 

However, I don't really want to enlarge a debate that I don't see as necessary. 



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index