In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Bernhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I think the list should be separated from the newsgroup. I've always >thought this confusing and unusual. I agree... >Newsgroups are dead, or a dead >zone. I'll bet the newsgroup side is the source of the lion's share of >the spam. ... but for completely different reasons. I subscribe to three stats newsgroups (sci.stat.math, sci.stat.consult, sci.stat.edu). None of them are dead nor remotely close to dying. A quick look at Google groups will confirm that. I find the quality of discussion in sci.stat.math to be highest and that in sci.stat.edu to be the lowest (though is not a great difference and there is much overlap of contributors, as well as much cross-posting). There is very little spam in any of them. I normally avoid posting to sci.stat.edu because every time I have done so in the past I get a bunch of *emails* saying things like "Hi everybody, I'm just off for a couple of weeks ski-ing and can't reply to your email just now...." These can be a lot more time-consuming to separate from real emails than spam. -- Graham Jones http://www.visiv.co.uk Emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] may be deleted as spam Please add a j just before the @ to ensure delivery . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
