[G12] Fwd: Momentum corrections

[Eugene Pasyuk]

Folks,

Please calm down and be reasonable. Today's exchange does not resemble a 
scientific discussion even remotely! This does not lead us anywhere and 
does not do any good to anyone. If you want to talk science - talk 
numbers. Without numbers it is not a science but belletristic.

-Eugene


Gagik Gavalian wrote, On 04/14/10 21:54:
> Since Moskov is unable to send messages to g12, I'm forwarding his message:
>
> Message from Moskov:
>
> Dear Matt,
>
> I have no intention to undermine your efforts to replicate our analysis.
> However, you left a trace of suspicion that even after a long time since,
> people have something in their mind.
>
> For different reasons we did not complete the full strength comparison
> of our analyses in both data and Monte Carlo. Period, you can't refuse this.
> At this stage of our analysis, which you are not following closely enough,
> the review committee has accepted our data analysis and the fact that we
> see a resonance structure. It doesn't mean yet that our analysis is embraced
> and released.
>
> Nevertheless you would probably agree  that any discussion refering
> to your analysis has to be abandoned due to memory update if you wish
> that followed.
>
> I am inviting our colleagues to start from the end of last review, which took us
> one more year of work. We simply can not agree  each time to fall back
> to ground zero
> and start from "already Matt Bellis has shown..." that MC reproduces
> the fake peak.
>
> The last committee was  chaired by Elton Smith and included members of previous
> committee to preserve continuity and prevent the loss of information.
>
> All songs have been sung, everything under the sky has been discussed
> and questioned and checked and recheked many many times.
>
> If anybody wants to bring new issues it should be something new,
> like whether g12 data show the same signal or not, or is a t cut obstacle or
> what? Does the fact that in g12 we see a signal even without a t-cut
> is sufficient
> to remove a barrier to g11 data release.
>
> So, we should keep civility, but we are professionals and we can't accept going
> around the circle and this is a reason why we refuse to discuss
> validity of our analysis
> based on your analysis of two years ago, putting it mildly.
>
> And finally to all recipients, we like Matt Bellis, we do not have
> anything personal
> against him and let the truth dominate our decisions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Moskov.
>
>
>
>
>
> Matt wrote:
>>
>>      I think we will all use the term "problem in your analysis" unless we
>>      know for sure what your analysis really were !
>>
>>
>>    Please note the dates on these public postings.
>>
>> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/wiki/index.php/ODU_Analysis_of_Meson-baryon_Interference#Dec_1_.2A_CMU_event_numbers__.5BMatt_Bellis.5D
>>
>> http://www.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/wiki/index.php/ODU_Analysis_of_Meson-baryon_Interference#Dec_21_.2A_Various_responses_to_Igor_and_ODU_.2A_.5BMatt_Bellis.5D
>>
>> --
>> --
>> ----------------------------
>> Matt Bellis
>> Stanford University
>> (SLAC office)  650-926-4392
>> (cell)    412-310-4586
>> ----------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> G12 mailing list
> G12 at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/g12