Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 2:17:09
In reply to Re: The article, posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
> Well the article was pretty much as I expected. A bit dry...
You don't think they'll want to make it into a movie? :-)
> How extensive and to what degree are the research you are planning to post here?What I do, I'll post (if at all possible), but I don't have specific plans. However, I do think, and have mentioned before, that it would be interesting to try to collect some outcome data... And shar just suggested a comparison with other message boards...
> jeez, did you have to mention me only in a "please be civil" context*Please* don't jump to any conclusions based on the posts of yours that I chose or didn't choose. I was trying to convey an idea of what goes on here, not to present a balanced sample of the contributions of individual posters.
> While the group might offer benefits of both types of groups, there is no evidence offered to support a finding that the group offers the “best of both worlds” because neither “world” outside the author's project is thoroughly surveyed in search of its best qualities...Hey, how about a letter to the editor? :-)
> name - I'm sorry. Do you have a mental health issue to discuss or are you just trying to impose your particular view of the world on us. Your posts do lack substance and, even though wordy, do not say anything.Please, I know there's more to this than meets the eye, and I value your contributions, but if you're not able to be civil, I'm going to need to block you. At least for a while.
> I was surprised to see the reference to Haven though...do I owe you a finder's fee for any new members???Good idea, maybe 10% of your subscription fees? :-)
> It seemed a good description of the board and some of the plusses and minuses of this format, kind of an overview of how it runs, some of the issues, etc...How about another letter to the editor? :-)
One thing that's obvious, but which I think I may not have made explicit, but should have, is my bias...
> I guess I would also have to agree with whoever said, above, that a couple of the citations were long and perhaps not the best examples of "typical" exchanges.
Hmm, I guess I did say "typical", oops! They were actually intended as examples of how good posts *can* be. Bias in action, maybe?
> Although you did use single letters to denote posters, the illustration of the frames format shows Vesper's screen name in full, and I am wondering if this was intentional or not.
Here's the deal. I wanted to include a screen shot, a picture is worth a thousand words, etc. But a real screen shot has the name of the poster. If I edit the web page, it's no longer authentic.
The answer (or one answer, anyway) is to use the actual web page, but to black out in an obvious way the name of the poster. But I just didn't think of that then.
> Some of the things I mentioned here that I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of, would actually make great subjects to explore more in depth on their own.
Like in a book? :-)
> Well, you asked, and I probably gave you more than you wanted to hear.
>
> It was a good article.Thanks, and I do appreciate *all* the input. After all, I couldn't have done this without you. :-)
> This is an article and not a research paper because it violates the essence of the scientific method. See BMJ Volume 315 2 August 1997...A third letter to the editor! :-)
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/360.html