I think it's up to Pancho to say whether he has taken any point or not.
More importantly, nobody "owns" a thread, although people who start one
carry some responsibility to wrap it up. A thread can digress, split,
morph depending on others' thoughts, and that's typically not a bad
thing.
I don't think anybody has made an issue of how _brief_ the original post
was. Pancho asked a question and then stated that his real question was
different. I don't think any of the subsequent comments were surprising,
given that admission -- nor, I submit, is it going to be interesting or
useful to recycle that discussion much further.
Nick
[email protected]
Martin Weiss
There seem to be two "strands" in this thread, and it is not always
clear to
me whether posters are referring to one of them - or both.
The first is chiding Pancho for being too brief in his initial post,
which
admittedly is not a good thing, but still: Others have gotten away with
it
before on this list.
The second is a critique of his research methods, and I would say:
"point
taken" on Pancho`s part...
Nick Cox
I am happy that any Stata Journal columns of mine are useful, but that
really wasn't the point I was making. Dichotomising continuous variables
throws away information. Usually that's a bad, or at least a dubious,
idea.
Pancho Villa
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Nick Cox<[email protected]> wrote:
> That aside, the mechanics of how to do this have been thoroughly
> ventilated, but its meaning has not been.
Yes, I'm reading the column on *for*, which seems like written with me
in mind. I'm one of those who've postponed learning about macros,
etc.
*
* 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/
