>I find the sensitivity to having posted the PCA report interesting. I
>don't believe that the ASA "endorses" anything that we post on the web
>site. Occasionally, there may be an official statement, but most of what is
>there are articles written by members for the journal or articles deemed of
>value by the editors/webmasters.
>
>While I don't object to the suggested disclaimer, I'm curious why similar
>disclaimers aren't requested for each of the documents we have on-line.
>
>By and large, the ASA has "no official position" on many of these issues
>and we tolerate a broad diversity of opinion within our ranks and encourage
>the public debate and education concerning these various views.
>
>There is a sense of endorsement only in that this is deemed a valuable
>document that contributes to the discussion. Of course, the ASA doesn't
>endorse the conclusions as necessarily correct.
>
>
>TG
>
I find the sensitivity to my alleged sensitivity to be interesting. My only reason for making the suggestion is that the report is, unlike everything else that I am aware of on the site, a formal statement of policy by an institution. Since the ASA is also an institution of sorts, it seemed that there might be confusion on the part of uninformed visitors. I would think it is fairly apparent that papers with individual's names on them are not statements of position of the organization.
P.G.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 19:40:28 EST