Bookmark and Share

Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at

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

RE: st: Gentle resister

From   "Cohen, Elan" <[email protected]>
To   "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: Gentle resister
Date   Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:06:21 +0000


See the following post by Phil Schumm a couple of weeks back.  I've set up RSS with Outlook Express and get "emails" about posts the same way I did with the old Statalist.  The only difference is that you only get a message when a thread starts and not for all posts.

- Elan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Antonakis
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:31
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: Gentle resister

Great post, Sam. Like you and everyone else, we appreciate work that has 
gone to all this. Personally, I much prefer to the listserv e-mail format.

Silly question--I have not figured this out yet--is there a way to get 
the forum to send us an e-mail when a posting is made? Then some of the 
diehards can still have their e-mail format--and then still go on the 
forum when interested in the discussion.



John Antonakis
Professor of Organizational Behavior
Director, Ph.D. Program in Management

Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC)
University of Lausanne
Internef #618
CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny
Tel ++41 (0)21 692-3438
Fax ++41 (0)21 692-3305

Associate Editor:
The Leadership Quarterly
Organizational Research Methods

On 15.04.2014 00:54, Lucas wrote:
> I appreciate all the hard work you have done, Marcello, and I
> appreciate all the hard work of everyone involved in the list,
> including the hard hardware work of Bill Mahoney.  People like Bill
> are often the unsung heroes and heroines of all the analyses analysts
> conduct and present. And, I appreciate that change is inevitable.
> That said, I will sound a, hmm, how to put it--a less than celebratory
> note about the new forum format.
> I just registered, and perhaps it will grow on me.  I think it
> probably will not.  I find it a bit . . . incongruous.
> On the one hand, massive computer storage capability and amazingly
> advanced search capability together render "organizing" material
> completely unnecessary--at least, the poor organization humans do.
> Google is one of the most, if not THE most successful companies on the
> planet. And their core product, the door through which 90 percent of
> their customers originally entered, is a simple square box in which
> one can type anything a keyboard allows and some things a keyboard
> does not (e.g., images), and the magic of google will bring--without
> ANY human categorization effort--relevant material to one's screen.
> This is how the retiring statalist worked, especially the archives--no
> one needed to categorize anything. The text itself was the source for
> search engines.
> Now, with the "advance" of the forum, instead of mining the steadily
> growing stockpile of information, people are supposed to "tag" their
> posts and, more important, place them in the appropriate collection:
> 1)general, 2)mata, 3)how the forum works, and 4)sandpile, er, uh, I
> mean box.  Why?  We can see the problems with this approach already.
> First, there have *already* been mis-classifications, which would seem
> to increase the work for someone (or, eventually, it will be very
> tough to find the relevant material). It is unclear whether and how
> such misclassifications will be corrected.
> Second, many postings combine material--this is the way of work, and
> human thought, and cannot be easily eradicated (without prohibitive
> costs in intelligibility, if it is even possible).
> Third, navigability has already been questioned.  The solution is for
> forum users to set up stuff on their browser. Again, why? Just to get
> the functionality old statalist had for someone arriving the very
> first time?  This is progress?
> Again, I completely understand the need to retire equipment, and thank
> those who managed aging equipment as long as they did.  I am truly
> grateful.
> I just wonder--why do we reinvent the wheel and call it progress,
> when, instead of a 360-degree round rolling object we now have a
> kludgy object that has two straight sides attached to one long curve.
> It does not roll.  It does not rest.  It does not work as well as what
> we had before.  Why don't we just move the wheel that works to a new
> platform?
> Anyway, maybe experience will help me see and feel this as an advance.
>   But, judging from many other "advances," I can say--it is quite
> possible that most will experience a loss of functionality, and, while
> they may accept it (because they appreciate the hard work of those who
> run it day-in and day-out, and there is no clear alternative), it will
> reduce the utility of the resource for them.
> Respectfully
> Sam
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *
> *
> *

*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2018 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index