On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:12:40AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >Doug McLauren wrote:
|
| >What is it with people taking private emails and replying to them to
| >the list?
|
| Sorry, but if you leave the "[RCSE]" subject unchanged, my email program will
| list it along with all the other RCSE emails as a part of the relevant
| thread. That's one reason the "[RCSE]" is there. I'm not about to carefully
| examine the headers of each RCSE email that I receive.
Oh, don't give me that -- it was no accident.
You had to _explicitly_ add the RCSE list address. Since I just
emailed you, it wasn't there. Obviously you carefully examined the
headers enough to see that it wasn't there, and corrected it manually.
You even had to add my name -- and spelled it wrong. (Your mail
client probably originally just said `You wrote :' because the email
was originally just to you.) Or is that your mail client's fault too?
| There was no reason for me to expect it anyway. Except for certain
| special cases, it's rude to reply with a private email when
| responding to a public discussion. Please keep your comments on the
| list so that we can all share,
No. I'll make a note not to email _you_ again, but if somebody sends
something to the list and I have something to say just to them
(especially if it's not R/C or soaring related), I'll just send them
an email. I do this quite a bit. Email's kind of neat like that --
you can send to everybody, or just to one person.
| and don't impose on someone's limited time by expecting them to type
| out a special reply just for you to read.
Then do not reply at all. That saves even more time.
The main point of my email was to say _how_ I'd made the mistake that
you pointed out. I doubted the list was really interested in a minor
error in arithmetic, but since you went to the trouble to correct it,
I thought maybe you were.
| While I'm on the subject, it's especially rude if you want to argue
| about something.
I wasn't arguing about something. (But now I guess I am.)
| I already had to killfile one guy here who started sending me hate
| mail recently because I presented an opposing view to his. He wrote
| in essence that he was entitled to his opinion but I was not.
| His irrational position
It's always the other guy who's irrational ...
| would never have been viewed as acceptable by other readers here,
| but he avoided that problem by emailing me privately.
It's also possible that his `irrational position' wasn't soaring
related. I guess I (we?) should consider myself (ourselves?)
fortunate that the list didn't see your half of that argument too.
| A public disagreement is a debate, a private disagreement is an
| argument, and I very much prefer debate.
My email had no soaring content, so I did not send it to the list. I
feel this to be common courtesy -- if your post isn't at least
somewhat related to Radio Control or Soaring, you don't post here.
Also, not only did you explicitly take my private email and reply back
to the list, but you selectively edited it making me look like I was
bitching at you. Which isn't so bad if the original email was sent to
the list, but since it wasn't, people probably think I sent you a one
line email that said `This thread needs to die'.
If people really care what the _entire_ email said, here it is :
--- cut here ---
From: Doug McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RCSE] An R/C Probability Brain Teaser
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:04:10AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >I agree that it takes 9 to get 51%, but at 22 I only got 97.58% is my
| >math off?
|
| Yes. The figure of 99.58% given by Charles Frey is correct. More precisely,
| it's about 99.5815978%.
|
| Doug McLaren's figure of 51% for nine people is also off. The correct
figure
| is about 53.4504048%.
`about' ?
Rounding off a bit are we?
| The answer of nine people is correct though, since the
| probability for eight people is about 44.5838152%.
Oh, I see what I did. I accidentally did 44/50 again instead of 42/50.
% perl -e 'print 1 - (50/50 * 49/50 * 48/50 * 47/50 * 46/50 * 45/50 *
44/50 * 43/50 * 44/50) . "\n"'
0.512337574199296
Still, it's time for the thread to die.
% perl -e 'print 1 - (50/50 * 49/50 * 48/50 * 47/50 * 46/50 * 45/50 *
44/50* 43/50 * 42/50) . "\n"'
0.534504048099328
--- cut here ---
And that's it. And it's the only email.
Personally, I refuse to get in a pissing match on the list, especially
since it's not related to R/C or soaring. The only reason I'm sending
this to the list is that you've made it sound like I had some sort of
pissing match with you in email first -- which I did not. So if you
want to respond to this, I'm requesting that you email me directly,
rather than the list.
And since this is the RCSE, I feel obligated to at least discuss
something related to R/C and/or soaring, so ...
It's not directly related to soaring, but it's definitely radio
control flying, 65 years ago --
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/denny_bare_navy_750.jpg
Somebody mentioned it on rec.models.rc.air, and I found it to be quite
interesting. Sounds like they had lots of (servo) channels -- which I
guess isn't too difficult to do, even in 1940, as you can easily put
200 lbs of radio gear into a full scale plane if you can remove the
pilot. (Or 400 lbs if you can remove two pilots.) Or a lot more if
you just remove some fuel or weapons ...
--
Doug McLaren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Her artistic sense was exquisitely refined, like someone who can tell
butter from "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter."
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and
unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in
text format
