Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 07:13:32 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Groeneveld <jim1stat@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Jim Groeneveld <jim1stat@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: just some list etiquette
This morning I came to work and completely had forgotten what I wrote
yesterday. So it was quite a surprise to see such a bunch of various
reactions. Most of them were sent to the list; you have (or have not) seen
them. They mainly supported my views and added even more opinions and
annoyances. Some of them were sent to me privately and only one of them
objected against my suggestions. Another one gave several good reasons for
I vaguely remember having known the real identities behind some of the
applied nicknames or initials once, and I regret having forgotten (written
down) those. Some of them already appear on the list for milleniums and
appear to be generally accepted. Yet I would appreciate to know at least
the names of the people who I am talking to personally.
Sometimes there are postings from people, with whom I may have some private
email exchange after that, from where I get amazed about people's questions
on assumingly very relevant subjects, which they are unable to solve with
SAS. Then I wonder how such a person could have gotten that job or project
at all, given his (lack of) knowledge and experience with SAS, and what
their managers could have made decide to appoint them for the task.
Sometimes, but very rarely I ask someone for &his background, &his company,
&his current job and project, and the demands for such a task in order to
try to understand the situation or to become amazed even more. But in such
a case I (almost) always get the requested information.
I thank you all for your opinions and vivid reactions, I enjoy reading them.
Now a little bit off-the-road from the subject:
I occasionally see contributions from people asking questions on which they
already have a (verbalized or not) sound answer by themselves, but want to
obtain support from the experienced community. They apparently are standing
alone in their organisation with their views, with which their managers or
collegues do not agree. I have seen the beginning of unjustified
methodological and statistical interpretations, decisions and their
consequences for not unimportant (political) projects. I could support the
questioner, or warn him for pitfalls, but any intervention should be done
by himself and would probably undermine his own position. So though we
agreed conceptually, he hardly used the support to inform and influence his
manager or project team. And contact was lost, while I knew things were
going into the wrong direction.
That is the sad story of issuing free and well-founded, but not involved
Regards - Jim.
Y. (Jim) Groeneveld, MSc., Biostatistician, Science Team
Vitatron B.V., Meander 1051, 6825 MJ Arnhem
P.O.Box 5227, 6802 EE Arnhem, the Netherlands
Tel: +31/0 26 376 7365, Fax: +31/0 26 376 7305
Jim.Groeneveld_AT_Vitatron.com (replace _AT_ by AT sign)
IF Sex='M' THEN CALL SYMPUT ('His', 'his'); ELSE CALL SYMPUT ('His', 'her');