HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:14:11 JST
Reply-To:     Hisashi Fukubeppu <FUKU10@JPNSUT10.BITNET>
From:         Hisashi Fukubeppu <FUKU10@JPNSUT10.BITNET>
Subject:      JPNSUT00,01 will be down ..
Comments: To: sut00usr@jpnsut00.BITNET

 The Science University of Tokyo node JPNSUT00,01 will be down
for hardware maintenance from 12:00 unitl 17:00 on Jul 27 JST local time
(from 23:00 on Jul 26 until 4:00 on Jul 27 EDT).

This affects connectivity to:
   JPN* nodes(Japan) , KR* nodes(Korea) , TWN* nodes(Taiwan)
Regards,

/Hisashi Fukubeppu (FUKU10@JPNSUT10)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: William Rainey Harper College; Palatine, IL  60067
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:13:15 CST
Reply-To:     Bob Brown <BBROWN@HARPERVM.BITNET>
From:         Bob Brown <BBROWN@HARPERVM.BITNET>
Subject:      HARPERVM down on 7/31 for UPS Installation

HARPERVM will be down for 6-8 hours on July 31, 1992 for installation
of a UPS.  We will shut down at 8:15 am.

We are an end-node.

-boB

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BBROWN@HARPERVM.BITNET     ####  ####    Bob Brown
Harper Community College   ##  ##  ##    Systems Programmer
Palatine IL USA            ####  ####    "...Boink"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 10:37:11 GMT
Reply-To:     UCDOPR@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
From:         UCDOPR@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
Subject:      IEGBOX downtime

THE IEGBOX WILL BE UNAVAILABLE TODAY FRIDAY 24TH JULY

FROM 11:30 to 12:00, (BST), FOR SYSTEMS WORK ON THE

TCPIP SOFTWARE.

APOLOGIES FOR THE SHORT NOTICE GIVEN.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:51:57 +0200
Reply-To:     EARNIE@DB0FUB11.BITNET
From:         EARNIE@DB0FUB11.BITNET
Subject:      DB0* nodes up

due to a severe HDA crash, all DB0* nodes were disconnected
from Thursday, 92/07/23 until Tuesday, 92/07/28. Since system
data was involved, the repair has taken some time.

No spool files are lost.

Sorry for any inconveniences.

-Wolfram Fassbender
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:53:22 EDT
Reply-To:     Helen McLean <HLMCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
From:         Helen McLean <HLMCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      CUNY systems access 8/6/92 and 8/7/92

There will be disruptions to networking availability throughout the
CUNY system (including CUNY campuses) on Thursday 8/6, 5am - 7am EDT,
and again on Friday 8/7, 7pm - midnight EDT, due to major tele-
communications upgrades. During those periods, CUNY computing systems
will be available, although access to them will be disrupted. Direct
dial access will be available during these times.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:40:33 MET
Reply-To:     Ulrich Giese <U001213@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL>
From:         Ulrich Giese <U001213@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL>
Subject:      HEARN down: Monday Aug. 3rd 8:00-12:00
Comments: To: pits@princeton.edu, info@surfnet.nl

i like to remind you, that the Dutch international node HEARN, will be
down next monday from 8:00-12:00 (local time). nevertheless, we are
doing our best to minimize the downtime.

have a nice weekend
-ulrich-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:56:26 GMT
Reply-To:     UCDOPR@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
From:         UCDOPR@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
Subject:      Mail transfer problems
Comments: To: hea-twg@swift.cs.tcd.ie

Our IEGBOX machine has been unavailable since 21:42 BST 27/07/92 as
spool space was very low on the system.  The problem has now been rectified.

Apologies for the inconvenience.
given.

Computer Operations,
Computing Services, UCD
28/07/92 at 09:58 gmt.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:12:08 MET
Reply-To:     Ingrid Ledererova <IL@CSPUNI12.BITNET>
From:         Ingrid Ledererova <IL@CSPUNI12.BITNET>
Subject: CSEARN down ( 25.7. and 26.7)

On Saturday July 25th from 8 to 16 and on Sunday July 26th from 8 to 14
CSEARN node will be out of running due to break of power supply.


                               Ingrid Ledererova
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.linkfail
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:11:49 GMT
Reply-To:     UCDOPR@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
From:         UCDOPR@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
Comments: To: centre-l@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
Comments: cc: hea-twg@swift.cs.tcd.ie

VM/SCS WILL BE UNAVAILABLE ON TUESDAY 28TH JULY BETWEEN17.00 - 21.00

DURING URGENT DISK MAINTENANCE. APOLOGIES FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE CAUSED.
From: Walter_W_HILL@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (wh37)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:20:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <MAILER-DAEMON>
X-: Full-Name: Mail Delivery Subsystem
Comments:     Resent-From: Walter_W_HILL@umail.umd.edu (wh37)
Comments:     Originally-From: MAILER-DAEMON@umailsrv0.UMD.EDU (Mail Delivery
              Subsystem)
X-To:         stat-l%mcgill1.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu


  Did I miss the response to this Lotus question?  I created a small
hypothetical data set, and ran a simple regression with the intercept excluded
in Lotus (version 2??) and
in Limdep.  The slopes matched, but the standard error of b differed in the
two runs.


Walter Hill
wh37@umail.umd.edu




>I seem to recall a presentation or a panel discussion on Statistical Computing
>on microcomputers where someone (maybe Leland Wilkinson?) noted that Lotus
>1-2-3 calculated a regression model incorrectly when the intercept term was
>not included.  Does anyone out in STAT-L know about this bug?  If you have
>details or a reference, please send them to me at the address below.  If there
>is sufficient interest, I will summarize for the list.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Steve Simon, Mail Stop C-22
>Chief, Statistics Activity
>National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
>4676 Columbia Parkway
>Cincinnati, OH 45226
>
>513-533-8271 (office)
>513-533-8510 (FAX)
>
>hhscdc!sis1/o=cdc/ou=cinc/ou=niobbs1@mhs.attmail.com
>


------------ End Forwarded Message -------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:02:01 CDT
From:         Ed Johnson <EJOHNSO3@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      Scholarly organizations

I would appreciate your suggestions and comments about scholarly statistical
organizations.

This fall I begin my doctoral course work in the area of mass communication,
with a cognate in statistics, at the University of Alabama. I woul appreciate
the names and addresses of organizations that you feel might be profitable for
me to contact.
                                   Ed Johnson
                                   University of Alabama
                                   EJOHNSO3 at UA1VM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:59:00 PDT
From:         Albyn Jones <jones@REED.EDU>
Subject:      Re: interaction effects in regression models

Marsh Feldman suggests:

>	Give the referee what s/he wants, but interpret the model
>	you feel is most meaningful based on your understanding of the
>	problem.

what if the referee wants something that doesn't make sense?  why not
respond to the editor with an explanation of the analysis presented
in the paper, and explain why the reviewer is wrong?

albyn jones
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:04:00 -0400
From:         Meredith_Warshaw@FRANKSTON.COM
Subject:      stat-l letter of thanks
X-To:         stat-l@frankston.com

To:     meredith warshaw@Frankston, frankston.com!meredith warshaw
cc:
From:   PAUL MARTIN GE-ELAB 8*256-3610 EP3-115
<world.std.com!ELAB.dnet.ge.com!MARTIN> @ uucp @ FRANKSTON
Date:   07/27/92 08:23:04 AM
Subject:        stat-l letter of thanks


Thanks to all the respondants to my inquiry on references for statistical
process control.  Here is a summary of the responses.

Jerome Braveman, 1981, Fundamentals of Statistical Quality Control.  Reston
Publishing Co, Reston VA. I am about halfway through this one, and it is
an excellent suggestion as an introductory text.  The math is at an advanced
high school level (leaving me to believe that I actually DO know a little
statistics) but that's OK.  I may move on to other suggestions as I progress.

AT&T's "Statistical Quality Control Handbook"

The Institute of Statisticians (43 St Peter's Square, Preston, PR1 7BR, UK)
publish a small booklet "An introduction to Cusum Charts".

Have the person call Minitab, 814 238 3280, and they will give some
references, since Minitab has a strong set of process control routines in
their program.  Ask for Dean Lapp, and say that Dennis Roberts sent you.
Hope this helps.

We are doing research on multivariate QC here at the Centers for Disease
Control and have published two papers in this field.  If you're interested
let me know.

Respondents include:

james ssemakula
statistical computing consultant
u.c. riverside

Sheryl Bass, ARPC Oswego

(R.) Allan Reese
Computer Centre
Hull University
Hull HU6 7RX, U.K.

Dennis Roberts

-Paul Martin
GE Electronics Lab
Syracuse, NY
From: WIORKOW@UTDALLAS.BITNET (John J. Wiorkowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Subject: Lotus Regression
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:27:33 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU


     You need to be very careful in using the Lotus Regression command.  In gen
eral it works O.K.  However in version 2.1(I haven't tried it for version 3.1)
I tried the classic y = 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 + x^5  for x = 1 to 20.  The
built in regression procedure gave the correct coefficients but estimated a ver
y non-zero residual variance (about 2.0 as I recall) even though there is no re
sidual error.  I called Lotus and they suggested I rearrange the columns to som
ething like  y = 1 + x + x^5 + x^4 + x^3 + x^2 and damn if it didn't work.  I
 do not know what numerical algorithm they are using but it obviouly has some i
nstabilities.
                    John J. Wiorkowski
                    Professor of Statistics
                    University of Texas at Dallas
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
From: nichols@spss.com (David Nichols)
Subject: Multiple comparisons in SPSS
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:03:19 CUT
Organization: SPSS Inc.


Several posts have been made in the not too distant past about using
multiple comparison, range or post-hoc tests (depending on the preferred
test(s) and vocabulary). In one of these there was a reference to not
being able to do these for repeated measures factors on current software.
This is not entirely true with regard to SPSS.

The MANOVA procedure on all platforms other than DOS (SPSS/PC+) has a
subcommand called CINTERVAL. This subcommand will allow you to produce
simultaneous confidence intervals for each set of parameters, be they
between or within subjects (within subjects is what MANOVA calls
repeated measures factors). The alpha level can be specified, and the
confidence intervals can be either Scheffe or Bonferroni type intervals.
Multivariate intervals are also available, should they be desired.

Given the way MANOVA is structured, you cannot simply ask it for all
pairwise comparisons and get Bonferroni or Scheffe intervals; in each
design that it runs, MANOVA estimates as many parameters for each 
effect as there exist degrees of freedom. Thus in order to estimate
all pairwise comparisons, multiple runs with different contrasts are
required. This is not difficult, and the Scheffe intervals can be used
straightaway, since they involve simply the number of degrees of
freedom in an effect and an F-distribution. The Bonferroni intervals
are a bit more complicated, for two reasons (one of which will go away
as of release 5). The first reason is that the divisor for alpha for
the Bonferroni intervals is the number of degrees of freedom for the
effect, not the number of pairwise comparisons. Thus, if one wants to
do all pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni correction, the alpha
specified to the program must be adjusted to make it give what is
desired. For example, if there are four groups, there are 6 different
pairwise comparisons. In this case there are three df, so the divisor
for alpha would be 3. Thus in order to get 95% Bonferroni intervals
for all pairwise comparisons, alpha would really have to be set at
.025 instead of .05. The other problem (which exists in current 
systems, but has already been fixed in the portable code and will be
correct for version 5) is that there is a bug in the Bonferroni
intervals such that they cut the alpha in half (you must ask for 
alpha of twice what you want in order to get the correct results).

For those interested in doing these tests on repeated measures, there
is another wrinkle in MANOVA: it will not allow nonorthogonal contrasts
for WSFACTORS. However, this can easily be worked around. I have a
description of how to do this online and will happily send it to 
anyone who would like it.


--
 David Nichols           Statistical Support Specialist            SPSS, Inc.
 Phone: (312) 329-3684     Internet: nichols@spss.com     Fax: (312) 329-3657
*******************************************************************************
 Any correlation between my views and those of SPSS is strictly due to chance.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:36:35 EDT
Comments:     Resent-From: Linda <ATKINSON@ERS>
Comments:     Originally-From: William Greene <wgreene@option.stern.nyu.edu>
From:         Linda <ATKINSON@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      LIMDEP

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linda Atkinson, Statistician     | BITNET:  ATKINSON@ERS             |
| U.S. Department of Agriculture   | Tel:     (202) 219-0505           |
| Economic Research Service        | FAX:     (202) 219-1292           |
| Washington, D.C.                 |          (ATTN: RM 240)           |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+


----------------------------Original message----------------------------




Memo:
To:	Users of LIMDEP 6.0 on IBM Mainframe systems
From:	W. Greene, developer, LIMDEP
Date:	July 21, 1992
Re:	Problems reading unformatted data sets.

Dear IBM User:

	Several IBM mainframe users have reported problems reading
unformatted data sets with LIMDEP version 6.0.  The program crashes with
an 'END OF RECORD ON UNIT 10' error.
	A LIMDEP user has suggested a patch which deals specifically with
this problem.  The offending line, which should be but apparently is not
protected by its ERR=992 specification, is in subroutine LOAD, and follows
statement 242,
		READ(IUD,2421,END=993,ERR=992)(LINE(J),J=ONE,255)

An approach for getting around the problem is

	1.  At the top of the subroutine, add the two lines

		CHARACTER*255 IBMBUF
		EQUIVALENCE (LINE,IBMBUF)

	2.  Replace the aforementioned READ statement with

		READ(IUD,2429,END=993,ERR=993)IBMBUF
	  2429  FORMAT(A255)

Users of nonIBM mainframe systems need not make this change.

				Sincerely yours,

				Bill Greene
				EcoSoft


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"stat-l@mcgill1.bitnet",FRANKLIN
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:56:00 CDT
From:         "Charles H. Franklin" <FRANKLIN@POLISCI.WISC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tetrachoric correlation

brobinso@LEVEN.APPCOMP.UTAS.EDU.AU writes:
>
>Can anyone please supply a good reference to tetrachoric and/or polychoric
>correlation coefficients? I have a colleague who has consulted 20
>statistics texts without success.
>
An old, but classic, reference is Kendall and Stuart, _The Advanced
Theory of Statistics_, Vol II, pp. 304-307 (tetrachoric) and
p. 561 (polychoric). The original polychoric reference appears to be
Lancaster and Hamdan (1964) "Estimation of the correlation coefficient
in contingency tables with possibly nonmetrical characters",
_Psychometrika_ 29:383ff.

\chf


Charles H. Franklin......University of Wisconsin--Madison
Internet: FRANKLIN@POLISCI.WISC.EDU   Voice: 608.263.2022
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-To: STAT-L@mcgill1.bitnet
X-Vms-To: IN%"STAT-L@mcgill1.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:46:00 AEST
From:         "TONY BAGLIONI, SOCIAL SCIENCES GROUP" <MAIL_BAGLIO@CC.UQ.OZ.AU>
Subject:      epi related stat packages

   I have been given this address as a possible source of info concerning
statistical packages commonly in use in epidemiologic and medical related
research.  I am the stat advisor to the social sciences group at the
University of Queensland and have been asked to gather some data with which
we can evaluate the aforementioned types of stat packages.  The inquiry came
from some individuals who would like a package which interfaces well with
ORACLE, is easily used by relatively unsophisticated field workers, and will
be readily available in Australia.  Any info (or sources of information) which
you can relay to me is greatly appreciated.
   Also, if this is a users group to which I can subscribe, please forward

the necessary information needed for membership..
  Thanks in advance.  Sincerely,
  Tony Baglioni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 09:49:12 CDT
From:         SOCLYMAN@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      for List Owner -- others may ignore this

Sorry for posting this.  I haven't received a reply from the personal
e-mail to listowner.  I need help signing off the list, because our
node name was recently changed so my new id is "unrecognized" by the
list.
  Please unsubscribe    SOCLYMAN@UMCVMB.BITNET or
                        SOCLYMAN@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU
Thanks,
K.Lyman
soclyman@mizzou1
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"stat-l@mcgill1"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:44:00 EDT
From:         PLOCH@UTKVX.BITNET
Subject:      RE: interaction effect

One needs to retain lower order terms in the equation, because the
presence of an interaction term means that the equation can be re-
written as a multiplicative equation using  linear transforms of
the main effects.
     Y=b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X1X2
can always be factored to
     Y=K + (a1 + a2X1) (a3 + a4X2)
There are an infinite number of solutions since one must define one
of the a(i) to get a solution. If b1 or b2 are set to zero, the
solution is easier since a1 or a3 must be set to zero. The point is
that even if set to zero, X1 and X2 continue to have effects. One
might determine the relative size of these effects by solving for
     ln(Y-K)=c0 + c1(a1 + a2X1) + c2(a3 + a4X2)

The arguement extends to higher orders of interaction and to
polynomials. It does not extend to categorical variables.

Retaining lower order terms that are not significant makes sense.
More to the point is that the presence of interaction should alert
the analyst to try non-linear models.

Don Ploch
     (BITNET: Ploch@UTKVX)
     (INTERNET: PLOCH@UTKVX.UTK.EDU)
Sociology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996
(615)974-7022
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:23:26 EDT
From:         "Bruce C. Dudek" <BCD80@ALBNYVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Interaction effects

With regard to lower order effects in the same equation as interaction
terms, the "correct" answer depends on more information than was givn
in the original question.  It sounds to me like the reviewer might have
a view of interaction effects predominated by experimental design texts.
In the situation where experimental factors form a factorial design, the
interaction vectors are uncorrelated with the main effect vectors.
Therefore, no concern about centering or multicollinearity exists.  In
such experimental situations, most texts recommend that main effects are
likely to be uninterpretable, or misleading when an interaction is present.
This doesn't necessarily imply leaving them out of the equation, but
the approach would involve looking as "simple" main effects rather than
main effects.  I suspect this is the reviewer's orientation.

However, if
the factors (predictors) are not design vectors from a controlled
experimental situation, then the earlier comments about centering are
appropriate.  The point is that an interaction cannot be unambiguously
interpreted, unless the correlated main effect is controlled for.  One
way of controlling is centering.  You might refer to a recent Sage
booklet by Jaccard, et al titled something like "Interaction effects
in Multiple Regression".

************************************************************************
************************************************************************
** Bruce C. Dudek             *                                       **
** Dept. Psychology           *  BCD80@ALBNYVM1.BITNET                **
** SUNY-Albany                *  BCD80@BALDER.ALBANY.EDU              **
** 1400 Washington Ave        *  Fax:    518-442-4867                 **
** Albany, NY 12222 USA       *  Voice:  518-442-4824                 **
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: stat-l@mcgill1.bitnet
X-VMS-To: in%"stat-l@mcgill1.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.stat-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:34:06 -0600
From:         Jim Clark <CLARK@UWPG02.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: interaction effects in regression models

     Discussion raises some interesting questions.  A few random thoughts:

     a.  One basic question appears to be whether you want the test of the
interaction effect to evaluate its difference from zero or the difference
between the slopes.  With main effects included, interaction coefficient
represents change in slopes.  Without main effects, its not clear to me that
you would be testing differences in slopes.

                i.e.,
        Y = b0 + b1*X1 + b2*X2 + b12*X1X2
                becomes
                Y = b0 + b1*X1 + (b2 + b12*X1)*X2
                i.e., b12 is change in slope of X2 as X1 varies (could also be
arranged as change in X1 as X2 varies) and b1 is the change in the intercept as
X1 varies.

     What would b12 represent without main effects for b1 and b2 included in
the equation?  I guess it would be the difference between b12 and 0 rather than
differences in slope of one variable across levels of the other.

     b.  If you want error term analogous to factorial ANOVA, then you would
include all predictors, wouldn't you?

     c.  Can SS predicted be unambiguously assigned to main effects and
interactions in the overall analysis?  This unambiguous allocation is helped by
centering, in my experience.  If there is variation that is shared by the main
effects and interactions, you might have to decide theoretically which
allocation makes more sense, or decide rationally the order in which variation
is to be allocated, or communicate the ambiguity.  In any case, seems to me
that you would still want to (have to?) analyze and partition variation taking
into consideration main effects.

     d.  Here is reference to Aiken & West.

     Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991).  _Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions_. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Best Wishes
Jim

James M. Clark                  CLARK@UWPG02.BITNET  (note ZERO-TWO)
Department of Psychology        CLARK@UWPG02.UWINNIPEG.CA
University of Winnipeg          (204) 786-9359
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
R3B 2E9
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU