rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/09/85)
>>The statistics showed that 60% of MY articles went to net.religion . You >>should learn how to read statistics. > I admit I misread siesmo's stats, and I apologize. Accepted. >> Furthermore, "40 pertain to arguments >>involving Rich not in other two categories" clearly leaves out the 120 >>articles which refer to arguments that refer to arguments in which the word >>'rich' was mentioned. Thus 142% of the articles revolve around me. Isn't >>that clear, Charles? What incredibly distorted lengths you'll go to in order >>to 1) malign me and 2) avoid answering questions posed to you. > Due to some arithmetic error, I lost track of 6 articles in my tallies. > This fails to explain, however, where Rich got 120 articles. There were in > fact only 82 articles, not 120 as Rich makes out by counting all the > articles twice. Charles, dear, this was a joke, as should have been evident from the fact that I was making light of your making ME responsible for the articles others wrote about/to me, by noting that you forgot to add in all articles with the word 'rich' in them, which would have raised the total to 142% of the articles being attributed to me. The point was that not only your original interpretation but your whole statistical package was flawed. >>> So Rich is using up half of the group. >>I'll cut out the 7 responses to me from other people. Would that satisfy >>you? Of course not. What would satisfy you is to silence me, so that you >>can engage in avoidance. Join Black's club, Charles. Smear campaigns in >>which you distort facts to malign other people shows your true colors once >>again. Go test some distribution features, Wingate. Fuck off! Your >>persistent attempts to discredit me just because I've shown you for what you >>are smell real bad. > I am not trying to silence you. Good grief!!!! One thing about you Rich: > you always rise to the bait. I think it is interesting that net.r.c spends > half of its traffic on arguments with ONE non-christian. I find it > interesting that net.religion spends half of its traffic on a single > argument about (ironically) a christian heresy, in which the principle > argument is against christians as a group. Obviously, there is no need for > net.r.c, if this is what net.religion is all about. I said there was no need for separate subgroups to isolate people from day one. So I agree with you there. If you weren't trying to silence me, what was your purpose behind posting statistics erroneous and irrelevant to the discussion at hand? > I call upon netters to exert a long-disused right (well, long-disused by > some of us, certainly myself anyway): the right to ignore. One of the nicer > things about the net, especially since the advent of rn, is that, like the > television, you can turn the channel, or even turn it off. A lot of the > recriminations tossed about in the Black incident would have been avoided if > we had ignored demands to confess to crimes we had not commited; many > articles would have been saved if we had realized that Rich was not going to > see reason on the definition of religion. Reason = your perspective, of course. The right to ignore was used vehemently when Black came along. Overused, not disused. What if they had 'rn' in Germany in the 1930s? Would all the unpleasantness have been avoided by not having to listen? Your rhetoric about crimes uncommitted is hogwash: the Christians who were silent for years in Germany were guilty of that crime of which you speak. The Christians who weren't silent, who acted, were too few in number. You are being justifiably compared to the former. Jumping up and down and screaming "But I'm an Epsicopalian" doesn't make you one of the latter. And that's all I've been trying to say for these past weeks. To which your response has been: look at these statistics about Rich... -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr