Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Re: Consensus Journals:Nonexistent journals based upon peer consensus
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.011445.13274@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 21 Nov 90 01:14:45 GMT
References: <27172@cs.yale.edu> <5802@stpstn.UUCP> <18637@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 17

In article <18637@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au> jim@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Jim Underwood) writes:

>><Then your method is complete crap.
>
>>Does anyone else find this retort as offensive as I do?
>
>Sorry Brad!  It seems fair enough comment to me.
>"Consensus" means "agreement of opinion on the part of all concerned" (OED)
>How do you expect to represent this statistically ???????

This is known as a "dictionary flame". The person who was talking
about statistical concensus obviously has a different definition. It's
constructive to ask him what it is, but it isn't constructive to call
it crap.

Fair has nothing to do with being constructive. Why do Usenet posters
sometimes find it necessary to be twits?