Thanks for the plug, but that is not comprehensive and I don't think it
belongs in the FAQ.
What I think we may need is
(a) a brief introduction to Stata that is universally available, that's
say 64 pages long.
(b) a code of practice that all Statalist questions pivoting on
ignorance of that can be answered with a brief polite injunction to read
it -- and that such replies are considered reasonable and courteous.
That is not quite a fantasy, as if no one else does it, I may end up
trying to write it myself.
That would cut out all excuses, often valid or plausible, that people
don't have access to the manuals, or that the help files and FAQs are
too numerous and too confusing to find out what they want.
As Peter [Tony] Lachenbruch, I and others have more or less pointed out
recently, the list is being increasingly stressed by a small number of
individuals who seem unable or unwilling to work with Stata except by
sending numerous messages daily to help them take each tiny step.
The individual questions are not outrageous, but a few individual people
are now inflating Statalist traffic considerably.
The last thing I want to recommend is that anyone be banned, or even
flamed, but come on, and you should know who you are, please think --
and read -- and work with Stata -- more and post less!
Nick
[email protected]
Martin Weiss
Both Ashim and Fabian Brenner could probably profit from Nick`s
comprehensive post at
http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2008-08/msg01258.html
This posts would, btw, also look good in the FAQ section for more
convenient
reference...
*
* 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/
