Google| Subject | Re: spreadsheet ergonomics |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/06/2017 09:36 (04/06/2017 09:36) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-a5d9f44954bedb536e5f0a08e99d4e6c@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| PGP | Sandman |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | chrisv (4h & 44m) > Sandman Snit (8h & 36m) |
In article <D50AB588.9CEF7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
Incorrect, you have shown no such thing.SnitSandmanSnitSnitSandman
What about when those who troll me refer to me with derogatory nicknames
Those would be irrelevant to this data,
Ah, so I am right about why you often refer to me without using my name.
I wouldn't know since it's just a mere claim
I showed multiple examples from today.
What you snipped and ran from:
I wouldn't know since it's just a mere claim from you without substantiation or data to determine its validity. Like always. Ands as such, the claim can be disregarded as irrelevant regardless.
Another unsubstantiated claim, I see. Good for you! Your track record of zero proof holds fast!SandmanSnit
since it shows how often you mention their names, i.e. how obsessed you are of the regulars in cola, not the other way around.
Ah, that explains why when I post ZERO times for a month I am still the most commonly mentioned person. LOL!
Face it, your data is nonsense.The data is data and nothing more. That you want to call it "nonsense" says more about you than anything else.
How about using the trolling criteria from Google I pointed you to and showing how all the regulars, including you and I, rate.I am not aware of any supposed "trolling criteria from Google".
But give how it will not back your biases you NEVER will. This is 100% predictable.The data is what it is, that's how often you mention others when not responding to them, and how many of those posts are of all your posts. And I'm not even counting your sock puppets!
I can't "look" at anything because you provided no substantiation to look at. Only mere claims. So you have two claims that need support:Snitas they do so often...Sandman
Got any data to support that claim? No? Figures.
Look at Carroll and his "gluey" and the "he who shall not be named" and the "the thing" and more.
"What about when those who troll me refer to me with derogatory nicknames"
What "nicknames"?
"as they do so often..."
How often is that?
Am I going to waste my time counting such instances just to have you lie... no.I am already fully aware that you can't and won't substantiate your claims.
Why would I waste my time like that?Why did you waste your time making claims you can't support? No one knows, but here we are. As you are well aware, when I make a claim I provide ample support for that claim.
Yeah, those of you who troll like to play with your databases of COLA in a bizarrely obsessive way, lie about what you find through twisted stats, and then whine when you are proved wrong.Only, none of that has happened outside your mind. The data is what it is. The metric (mentions) was provided by you when the metric I assumed (responses) was deemed invalid by you, in spite of a response from grey cloud was what you labeled as "obsessing".
The problem for you is that the data exists, and it can be queried and statistics can be shown and substantiated. You can't change that, you can only make claims using mere words in response. You have nothing to counter the onslaught of data that is poured over you whenever you make an incorrect claim. You're not even a guy that brought a knife to a gun fight, you brought a balloon.
Oh well. It is all part of the "fun" of COLA.I agree, to see you crying on the floor whenever your claims are shot down is indeed very entertaining.
-- Sandman
03/31/2017-
-
-
