<>
There seem to be two "strands" in this thread, and it is not always clear to
me whether posters are referring to one of them - or both.
The first is chiding Pancho for being too brief in his initial post, which
admittedly is not a good thing, but still: Others have gotten away with it
before on this list.
The second is a critique of his research methods, and I would say: "point
taken" on Pancho`s part...
HTH
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Cox
Sent: Dienstag, 7. Juli 2009 18:52
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: st: RE: Converting a continuous var into a binary var
I am happy that any Stata Journal columns of mine are useful, but that
really wasn't the point I was making. Dichotomising continuous variables
throws away information. Usually that's a bad, or at least a dubious,
idea.
Nick
[email protected]
Pancho Villa
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Nick Cox<[email protected]> wrote:
> That aside, the mechanics of how to do this have been thoroughly
> ventilated, but its meaning has not been.
Yes, I'm reading the column on *for*, which seems like written with me
in mind. I'm one of those who've postponed learning about macros,
etc.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
