bogus bogotuning

[Jason A. Smith]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:33, Greg Louis wrote:
> David did mention this morning that he agrees with my view that such an
> option is undesirable, so that's probably the situation.
> 
> I really find this thread a bit comical, you know.  I wrote bogotune
> (in R), and in the process I determined that -- for my own convenience
> -- I should have the program stop if there weren't enough messages to
> give me reliable results.  Then David and I took it public, since it
> seemed a useful tool, converting it first to perl and then (David did
> the hard work this time) to C.  At one point there was actually an
> option to do just what you wanted, but we took it out again because it
> wasn't found helpful.  Now you come along and ask for it, we try
> (persistently) to explain why it's a bad idea, and because we disagree
> with you (on the basis of experience and as developers of the code in
> question), we're called arrogant, closed-minded, stubborn and what not.
> I'm not really interested in "discussion" on that level, but if you do
> change the code yourself, and you do present a plausible example of
> a useful run with small numbers, I'll not refuse to consider changing
> my position.

I have said this many many times, I am NOT arguing with you on the
technical aspect and the validity of the results obtained with a small
corpus.  I would only like to have the freedom to run it myself without
wasting my own time to maintain a trivial patch and compile from
sources, for a simple change that would cause no harm whatsoever. 
Simply turn the exit into a warning with suitable disclaimer.  Where is
the harm?

~Jason