Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:07:05 -0500
Reply-To: Mike.Janicke@JMAGROUP.COM
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From: Mike Janicke <Mike.Janicke@JMAGROUP.COM>
Subject: Re: Sound and Fury
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Chris, I'm not sure if you could have said this any better as well,
however, I seem to remember reading in a tech report something about this.
"Lanning, Chris" <clanning@AMGEN.COM> on 11/30/98 11:48:30 AM
Please respond to "Lanning, Chris" <clanning@AMGEN.COM>
To: SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU
cc: (bcc: Mike Janicke)
Subject: Re: Sound and Fury
Martin,
I couldn't have said it better myself. This is obviously a thoroughly
researched and thought out answer.
Chris Lanning
Trilogy Consultant
clanning@amgen.com
1-805-447-0634
SAS Consulting is my life!!!
> ----------
> From: Martin Trollope[SMTP:martint@hollard.co.za]
> Reply To: martint@hollard.co.za
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 8:17 AM
> To: SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Sound and Fury
>
> Jay,
>
> This is a DISCUSSION list. If you have a problem with receiving mail
which
> does not reach your high and exalted level of understanding then please
do
> everyone else on the list a favour and un-subscribe.
>
> I have found many of what you describe as "knee-jerk" responses, written
> by
> "you airballs" (which seems to include several long standing and
> respectable
> members of the list) to be useful, informative and interesting.
>
>
> Martin Trollope. Martint@hollard.co.za
>
>
> |\ _,,,---,,_
> ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
> |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
> /---''(_/--' `-'\_)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@AKH-WIEN.AC.AT] On Behalf Of Jay
> Jaffe
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 1998 9:54 AM
> To: SAS-L@AKH-WIEN.AC.AT
> Subject: Sound and Fury
>
> I am getting not a little tired of rapid-response blard that is
> practiced on this list by a few verbose personalities. By which I mean
> repeated "helpful" dross such as: "Joe, I'm not sure if this exactly
> will work in your situation as I understand it, but did you try ... ?"
> or "I seem to remember reading in a tech report that something kind of
> like this might be caused by ... " That is, the writer's concept of a
> good answer is the earliest answer, whereas a rational person would not
> post dozens of "answers" a week just to see their name in e-print.
> Would those of you airballs who habitually knee-jerk a response please
> stop it?
> Note: I have no problem with other personalities who repeatedly post
> elaborate, researched, on-target responses. Perhaps their employers
> should -- though the correlation of their opinions is slightly less than
> the fact that the mail might be read by brokeragehouse.com -- but not
> I. At least they give us good SAS.
> For the point is, you see: good messages have a high info-to-blah
> ratio.
> ... 'Course flame exchanges, which I am NOT trying to start, are
> another story.
>
> Thanks, - j
>
| 
