rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)
> When the newslists came out recently, I noticed that Rich contributed 60% of > net.religion in the last time period. This piqued my curiosity, so I took > some statistics: > > In net.religion: 82 articles > 17 posted by rich > 8 refer directly to rich > 40 pertain to arguments involving rich not in other > two categories > 17 have nothing to do with Rich The statistics showed that 60% of MY articles went to net.religion . You should learn how to read statistics. 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. > I should point out that the vast majority of the 40 articles pertain to Don > Black and the little inquisition which followed. According to these numbers, > 80% of this group (by articles) is devoted to Rich's discussion; this number > is higher when size of articles is taken into account. Even further furthermore, if Charley Wingate would shut his flaming mouth about me and start addressing some issues, the percentage of the newsgroup "devoted to me" would drop by over 150%. The article I am replying to being a prime example. The man is plainly more concerned with showing up a person who debunks his beliefs and shows him for what he is rather than acting on his supposed beliefs. > In net.r.c: 24 articles > 5 posted by rich > 7 responses to rich > 12 other discussions, of which > 7 are the "translations" discussion > 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. > Draw your own conclusions. From your data? I think you want people to draw YOUR own conclusions. -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/08/85)
In article <854@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP writes: >> When the newslists came out recently, I noticed that Rich contributed 60% >> of net.religion in the last time period. This piqued my curiosity, so I >> took some statistics: >> In net.religion: 82 articles >> 17 posted by rich >> 8 refer directly to rich >> 40 pertain to arguments involving rich not in other >> two categories >> 17 have nothing to do with Rich >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. I light of the next statement, though.... > 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. >> In net.r.c: 24 articles >> 5 posted by rich >> 7 responses to rich >> 12 other discussions, of which >> 7 are the "translations" discussion >> 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 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. Flame away, Rich. I'll not be part of your audience any longer. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Alleluia! Christ is risen. - The LORD is risen indeed; Alleluia!