RE: st: RE: Correct Way to Respond to Posts when Email is Turned Off

["David Radwin" <dradwin@mprinc.com>]

I concur with Sam's opinion and rationales, except for the part about using 
gmail (which I don't disagree with but simply don't have an opinion about).

David
--
David Radwin
Research Associate
MPR Associates, Inc.
2150 Shattuck Ave., Suite 800
Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone: 510-849-4942
Fax: 510-849-0794

www.mprinc.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-
> statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Samuel R. Lucas
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 12:36 PM
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Cc: lucaselastic@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: st: RE: Correct Way to Respond to Posts when Email is Turned
> Off
>
> To me this goes in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" pile.  I
> really do not understand the rush of people from a technology that
> works well to another that may not offer any new functionality.  Such
> moves often resemble taking the circular tires off of a functioning
> car and installing the new, flashy, faddish square tires.  Yay.  I
> have square tires.
>
> If there is some major advanced functionality that a new approach
> offers, and it does not compromise the existing functionality, then no
> problem.  Often, though, something of value is lost.
>
> I like that I do not have to remember to go check a web-site.  Nor do
> I get reminders to go visit the web-site in my normal course of work.
> Nor am I interrupted by an RSS feed.  Stuff comes to me in the normal
> course of my activities.  If I am away, what arrived in my absence is
> still sitting there and I can read or ignore it if I want.  I can
> easily forward a message to someone with whom I am working if it looks
> useful to the group.  My interface is not encumbered by ads, pop-ups,
> or other web-clutter.  I do not have to give permission to scripting
> on the page to read anything.
>
> I admit all this was better when I did not use a gmail account for the
> listserv, but I was forced to do so for local reasons.
>
> So, count me as a "No" on this issue.
> Sam
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Marcello Pagano
> <pagano@hsph.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > We almost did a few years ago, but it was a little premature then and we
> > would have lost a few folks with less modern equipment.  Maybe we should
> > reconsider.  Any negative votes??  Don't give me the positives, I think

*
*   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/