X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=nT8hPQbHk+MV6rkYiIGC2p/mIa+bWRNkpGLqk07hcVQ=; b=NYbtqBp239LGpEuzX13KwOrjjK2PsX9BHSIQ6flr2UtBofwSlXebnuVLAhUC23XBBj RHmgw3MaZGwB6qfTcp2iy/t3xMQkfl0Ym59nCWDO9SigqeFj0TjlveFn71HFuLWGhLo1 a46fDANfsqQqxW0ZBJjQBVNWiu5u8VYdPvarIsoA5tJWoAOnHUuiOfFE8fzFBI6OE9RE Zw+cbwMgxHiOvPt+mKkyz+LSquqc+6BwOhqZ4qHQEXhyMeF274nhtbAUQtMRI7k2LYGi s7kCxHDIb9OTD5vO7ow9f2m5FDLQQ3IY0Giv0fL/SeplUB8CiUfG/KYHiRyCjj0Tkw6u RTgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.213.78 with SMTP id m75mr47401103oig.56.1451842948322; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:42:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1512221837 DOT AA25291 AT ivan DOT Harhan DOT ORG> <20151222232230 DOT 12633 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <0F6F1D0F-4F07-48EA-90FE-836EAD4E2354 AT noqsi DOT com> <0FCF3774-F93C-4BFF-BB61-636F75DCCACB AT noqsi DOT com> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2016 17:42:28 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] A fileformat library From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: gEDA User Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113aca4e34593605287187b1 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk --001a113aca4e34593605287187b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 3 January 2016 at 14:48, John Doty wrote: No apology needed. I=E2=80=99m a scientist, I=E2=80=99m used to this. I rec= all the time I > was publicly accused of =E2=80=9Cwitchcraft=E2=80=9D for digging out a re= sult using an > unfamiliar statistical method. The accuser then went back to her lab, too= k > another look at her own data, and proved I was right. We never saw a > dispute as personal. Scientific research is like this: we have titanic > arguments with our friends. That=E2=80=99s how we bring all of the facts = and ideas > to light and get the science right. > Sounds rather dysfunctional to get as far as "titanic arguments"... and that is not conduct we should expect or condone here. (From anyone). Best wishes, Peter --001a113aca4e34593605287187b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 3= January 2016 at 14:48, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:

=
No apolo= gy needed. I=E2=80=99m a scientist, I=E2=80=99m used to this. I recall the = time I was publicly accused of =E2=80=9Cwitchcraft=E2=80=9D for digging out= a result using an unfamiliar statistical method. The accuser then went bac= k to her lab, took another look at her own data, and proved I was right. We= never saw a dispute as personal. Scientific research is like this: we have= titanic arguments with our friends. That=E2=80=99s how we bring all of the= facts and ideas to light and get the science right.

Sounds rather dysfunctional to get = as far as "titanic arguments"... and that is not conduct we shoul= d expect or condone here. (From anyone).


B= est wishes,

Peter

--001a113aca4e34593605287187b1--