> I just did a quick tally of the "Top
> 25" posters and the number of their
> posts to this entire site. I don't know how
> far back it goes, but my totals are 3,272!!

> So, when you write that you are frustrated
> to receive a "this is wrong" from
> me, without a detailed, lengthy explanation
> as to why, my answer to you is that,
> occasionally, I don't have the time, in my
> 3,272 posts, to write as much as the
> questioner would like me to.

That's fine, Don. But my point was this: If you take the time to post "you are wrong" then why not take the time to post where. Or else just wait until you either have the time, or run the test, and can answer in the "you are wrong and here is why" methodology.

Clearly in the Zen vs HiLo there was nothing "wrong". There was an anomaly in that Zen came out worse. Because the original Zen as entered in CVCX didn't have late surrender indices. My first question would be as someone that simply answered a question that got somewhat hijacked (is PE a good measure as opposed to score?) should I (or anyone) know everything there is to know about Zen in order to run a sim on it? I suspect the answer is no as the thread went on for a good while before Parker found the answer (original zen has no LS indices).

> Often, I write things like, "See BJA3,
> p. xxx." This may frustrate some people
> who don't have the book. My response is:
> "I've written it up at length once --
> and rather painstakingly, at that -- I'm not
> required to write it ad infinitum and ad
> nauseam, because the same question has been
> asked for the tenth time.

Again, that is OK. However, there is another approach. I answer the same questions all the time, but I realize that for every time I answer them, one more person (at least) has learned the answer. I _could_ refer posters to my Ph.D. thesis when they ask about a particular parallel algorithm I developed. I _could_ refer posters to a paper I had published in a journal. But I rarely do. I do have several of these papers on my web site in HTML format and don't feel bad about giving someone a link and say "read these and if you have questions, feel free to ask after you finish."

I don't particularly mind the book references. I will add that I have BJA2. Based on page #'s you have posted, often with little "context" finding what you are talking about could be difficult (or even impossible). At least one AP has helped me a couple of times by saying "Don's BJA3 page number is XXX in your BJA2 version." And you can feel free to continue doing that as there's not a thing wrong with referring to what anybody might call one of "the" BJ references. I do that often by referring someone to Knuth's series of books, by saying "See Knuth VOL 2, page xxx.

Of course if they don't have it, we go full circle and I end up answering directly.

> You could have taken the "something is
> wrong" as a challenge -- to find the
> error yourself. Parker did.

Now you are using a term I will challenge. "error". Please cite the "error" in my data. Note that "error" does not mean "something against your intuition." "Error" is defined as "mistake". "something done incorrectly".

Omitting indices was hardly an error on my part. I simply gave a specific set of game rules, quoted Norm's sims as distributed, after the "you are wrong" I ran some 1B round sims myself to make _certain_ all the rules and settings were consistent between the two sims, and the answers came out as they did. I don't consider it an error to use standard, as distributed indices for a counting system.

This relates to a particular NSF proposal I once wrote, and left off one person on the reference list that a reviewer thought I should have included. Turns out the reference I had omitted had not yet published any results on this topic, the reviewer just happened to know about the research by personal contact. How exactly would I have been able to cite a reference that had not been published? NO idea. How would I have known to edit and add non-standard indices to a Zen system I know nothing about? So while I won't disagree that Zen (or any good L2 count) is better than Hi-Lo in PE or ultimately in SCORE, in general, the "zen" you tested is not the "accepted zen"...

Were you wrong? I wouldn't say so, no. You knew of some better indices. Was I wrong for not knowing about them? I stand firmly on "no". Was Norm wrong for distributing the standard zen indices? I don't see why.

> Instead, you
> decided, as above, yet again, to take the
> long-winded, defensive route. Everyone here
> is telling you how counter-productive that
> is, but you refuse to listen.

What I refuse to listen to is someone saying that I made an error when it is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that at least in this _one_ case, absolutely no error was made whatsoever. Until we get past that, yes, I will refuse to listen. I can compare numbers. If someone asks me which is better for a particular type of software engineering project, C++ or Java, I can answer that. But I will be talking about C++ or Java without any non-standard features added by someone that found a deficiency. That is the purpose of "standards" in the first place, so we can all talk the same language. When I say Hi-Lo with full indices, I mean as defined by Wong. Not as defined by Einstein or Elvis. I'd refer to those (if they existed) as Hi-Lo (Elvis version) or something to avoid mangling the standard that everyone knows.

So error is wrong.

Period.

> Viktor and Parker have actually asked me to
> post less frequently here. They think I am
> TOO generous with my time on the Free pages,
> and they think that I should spend the large
> percentage of my time on Don's Domain only.
> I have resisted that over the years, but,
> truth be told, discussions like these, and
> your attitude, in particular, are beginning
> to make me see their point of view! :-)

Perhaps you might re-think that "and your attitude." I'm generally a pretty mellow person. But I do expect the common courtesy of not only telling me "you are wrong" but pointing out exactly where and why. I don't see why that is too much to ask.

> You very badly need to lighten up.

_I_ need to lighten up?

I just tried to answer a question. And it turned into some sort of Zen war...

> Don