Re: sci.stat.math.moderated ?
- From: Lou Pecora <pecoraREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:53:10 -0400
In article <1144411981.189224.160100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
beliavsky@xxxxxxx wrote:
A moderated newsgroup devoted to the proper subject of sci.stat.math
should not be necessary, but I guess it is. If someone starts the
process rolling (there is an established Usenet procedure that I am not
familiar with), there will be at least one vote in favor, and I suspect
there will be many.
You're right. I'm just a lurker, but I'd vote for it.
-- Lou Pecora (my views are my own) REMOVE THIS to email me.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: sci.stat.math.moderated ?
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: sci.stat.math.moderated ?
- References:
- sci.stat.math.moderated ?
- From: beliavsky
- sci.stat.math.moderated ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Less random than I thought.
- Next by Date: Re: Regression Modeling Subject To Constraints
- Previous by thread: Why?
- Next by thread: Re: sci.stat.math.moderated ?
- Index(es):
