Sandman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

In article <D4CF7E14.90A22%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:

Snit
Jonas Eklundh asked for a better criteria to show his obsession (and the obsession of others). I selected his posts from the start of the year and show his obsession.

Sandman
Diversion #1

What I asked was what definition of "Obsession" and "Begging for attention" do you have that fit Greyclouds post that isn't just "he responded to me"?

And for your diversion:

select count(id) from sandman.usenet where name = 'Snit' and ref not in(select mid from sandman.usenet where email >>>'mr@sandman.net' and date >'2017-01-01') and mytext like '%sandman%' and date >'2017-01-01'

- ->151

You've posted about me 151 times in posts not directed at me. So how did I do?

select count(id) from sandman.usenet where email >>>'mr@sandman.net' and ref not in(select mid from sandman.usenet where name = 'Snit' and date >'2017- 01-01') and mytext like '%snit%' and date >'2017-01-01'

- ->26

So you self-nuked again. You just can't find a definition of "obsession" that won't fit you better than anyone else.

Snit
GreyCloud would see much the same: both of you have been posting mostly about me (or your fantasies of me) or just with insults about me for likely 90% of your posts or more. I would say even 50% would be sign of obsession.

Sandman
select count(id) from sandman.usenet where email >>>'mr@sandman.net' and ref not in(select mid from sandman.usenet where name = 'Snit' and date >'2017- 01-01') and mytext not like '%snit%' and date >'2017-01-01'

- ->60

That's 60 posts where I am not responding to you nor talking about you. Do your own math :)

Snit
Jonas Eklundh busted forging quotes

Sandman
Lie #1

Snit
changing the topic from PERCENT of posts ABOUT another person to COUNT of posts that MENTION another person by name

Sandman
You're going to have to specify your criteria a little better here. You never said anything about "percentages".

But the numbers are above, 26 is 43% of 60.

Since you specifically stated that "obsession" is *not* responding to a person (in spite of calling Greycloud obsessed after responding to you),

all my responses to you are not counted. But let's do the math for you, but spread it out for each poster, shall we? We have the technology! :)

Person | >| < | ! - ---------------------------------------------------------- Marek Novotny | 91 | 379 | 278 owl | 225 | 296 | 199 Peter K?hlmann | 81 | 159 | 92 Silver Slimer | 12 | 193 | 83 GreyCloud | 209 | 246 | 108 Melzzzzz | 11 | 49 | 24 John Gohde | 10 | 12 | 4 Sandman | 154 | 181 | 113 vallor | 46 | 118 | 86 - ---------------------------------------------------------- Total posts from Snit: 2574 Posts where Snit talks about people: 1807 (70%)

So, to recap, second column is how many times that person has responded to you, third column is how many times you have responded to that person, and the fourth column is how many times you have talked ABOUT that person in a post that is NOT a response to that person.

And then there is a summary of how many of your total posts that consists of you talking about a person that you're not responding to. That's 70% of all your posts.

So by your new metric, your biggest obsessions are clearly Marek, owl, me and Greycloud.

This is data for the last two months. And in all fairness, here is the data for me:

Person | >| < | ! - ---------------------------------------------------------- Marek Novotny | 16 | 6 | 3 Snit | 181 | 154 | 11 Steve Carroll | 42 | 20 | 2 GreyCloud | 12 | 2 | 1 - ---------------------------------------------------------- Total posts from Sandman: 229 Posts where Sandman talks about others: 44 (19%)

In the same time period I have talked about you 11 times in posts not directed at you. Only in a measly 19% of posts do I even talk about other posters than the one I am responding to, and we both know that posts like these, where I list database data, make out most of those posts. Oh, and 11 is 4.9% of all my posts. Talk about obsession, huh?

Like I said, stop making claims based on metric that can be quantified! There isn't a definition of "obsessed" you can come up with where you don't come off worse than everyone else in cola.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYqqKVAAoJECFEwfBaA+jRn90H/1HDJrZ/WkXDWlP0soeYlofc d96xIuOh3PLX05T4v9OkWrn5OhXrgAtBUa2cKtDAh+mopw5X+2EbxoKjkweHIVbx zbon0bl7GnywdgNKOMOW4jQg9nvBPIQ7HnGj+ZNdJGMCxXI/XQ5zjtLfRPTRkAu7 tlz+wOIFlefaR6Vz0xaIEaGnPn8Yn/p41xefSww4XuSFDFwqGHxWD3tN8Ad0E+5y kEUDa9DphVqhHfbkrF/Bw0lSQ6csPFnJIsYTDo1ZBbBGtfIHJl6F4xjwiF6BKOnI 3LURv4Mt7XaIha2ouwSh7yeYbS553LkdsiC72NpfBfH3BZcw1JcLz0QM8xPp2bc>=j9D5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----