Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 13:26:34 -0400
From: Stevan Davies <miser17@epix.net>
To: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com
Subject: Re: Re Thomas/Q Project: Adjustments

Mark:
> >Here are the examples that have been queried.  It would be good if 
> >more people could have a look at these.  I would like to have a look 
> >at these in more detail when I have some time next week.
> >
> Mark,
> I take it from this list that these adjustments include, or are  mainly,
> from kibbitzers rather than the original analysts.
> 
> This introduces the issue of whose judgment is 'final'? I think the table
> should include, at least intermediately, the judgments of ALL participants,
> and that where assessments differ, the differences should be left in the
> table unless an assessment is withdrawn by the assessor.
> 
> Bob

Oh I can just tell we are going to have some kind of methodologial
bruhaha over this. I personally prefer the idea of somebody's 
drawing a conclusion instead of a set of various numbers. I wondered
what you were going to do and you've done it the latter way. 

Mark will do it the former way and we'll basically get Mark's list 
informed by the judgements of others. Which I'd prefer. It's hard 
to argue with or against a compilation of numbers (which is reason
#65 why scholars get so outraged at the JSem... who can they 
go to and try to change the mind of?). 

Steve