[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: RE: outreg, outreg2, and the thread-jacking

From   "Nick Cox" <>
To   <>
Subject   st: RE: outreg, outreg2, and the thread-jacking
Date   Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:45:20 +0100

I agree with this as a matter of abstract principle. Who wouldn't? 

Hijacking a thread for your own different purposes messes up the list,
including the archives. 

But, shucks, threads are conversations too and people will digress or
change the subject if they feel like it. And neither the original poster
nor anybody else has a right to say "You should never change the

And what's the complaint in practice? 

I see that the question was about -outreg2-. 

Martin answered showing a way to do it using -estout-. 

I made some comments about stars and significance levels. 

Johannes Geyer answered showing a way to do it using -xml_save-. 

Martin's comments and Johannes' comments strike me as good, constructive
comments. Perhaps they weren't exactly what the original poster wanted
but lots of people work in this territory and I'll bet that even if the
original poster really _only_ wanted an answer in terms of -outreg2-
their posts could have interested others too. 

In general, "You're trying that, but here's another way to do it" is a
highly useful kind of answer. 

If anything the biggest digressions were by me, not Martin. But I don't
feel that embarrassed by them. 

We could add another piece of advice: Don't be too sensitive if people
start discussing alternatives to your own program, or programs as the
case may be. 


Roy Wada

Dear People,

Thread-jacking is taking over a thread by taking a part of
the thread and twisting around to the thread-jacker's own
topic, thereby hijacking the original intent of the post.
People starts responding to the new, hijacked content.

A small number of people has been a habitual offender.
Most recently Martin Weiss has done it several times.

I could return the favor by hijacking the threads related to
Martin's purposes, but it would quickly become old, ugly,
and tiresome. Surrogates and fake postings become involved.
We are halfway there.

In my view, this is highly undesirable for everyone involved,
including every subscriber to the Statalist who would be
sujected to them.

Before that happens, I suggest everyone follow my example,
which is to refrain from interjecting into other people's
program unless it directly pertains to that particular program.

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2023 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index