[R] NA, where no NA should (could!) be!

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 21/12/2008 7:57 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Dieter Menne
> <dieter.menne at menne-biomed.de> wrote:
>> Peter Dalgaard <p.dalgaard <at> biostat.ku.dk> writes:
>>
>>> Why do so many people have such trouble with the word "reproducible"? We
>>> can't reproduce that without access to weblog_by_date!
>> In a strict sense, the example is "reproducible" as opposite to "spurious".
>> Reproducible research means that you can get the same results whe you buy
>> an ultracentrifuge, high-grade chemicals, a safety lab, and a technician
>> with a golden hand .:)
> 
> I think reproducible is the correct word and its meaning should be clear from
> both its conventional meaning, see link, and the context in which its used:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
> 
> It is surprising how many posters disregard this basic requirement for a post,

I don't find it surprising.   Putting together a good bug report 
requires several skills that need to be learned.  I suspect medical 
doctors and auto mechanics also work with poor reports of what's wrong. 
  I do sometimes find it frustrating (as I imagine doctors and auto 
mechanics do), but probably not as frustrating as the posters find it.

> clearly stated at the bottom of each message to r-help.

Now really, who reads repetitive stuff at the bottom of messages?  The 
dividing line clearly indicates that it's some formal requirement, not 
meant to be read.

Duncan Murdoch