Snit
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>stated in post mr-960457.14363504032007@News.Individual.NET on 3/4/07 6:36 AM:

Sandman
In article <C210BA39.2C048%wally@wally.world.net>, Wally <wally@wally.world.net>wrote:

Wally
Clearly there has been a contest to see who is most obsessed with me... so I figured I would do the contestants a favor and rate them. I looked at the Google archive and found how many posts each of the following have posted to CSMA and how many of those posts they mentioned me. I looked only for "snit", so when then call me "snot" or "Michael" or otherwise try to be "clever" in their trolling it might not be counted... so be it.

Here were the scores (percentages rounded):

Adams: 1052/1080 = 97% Carroll: 3031/3050 = 99% Sandman: 4840/6580 = 74% Wally: 379/ 477 = 79%

Ok... it seems like Adams and Carroll are well ahead with Sandman and Wally trailing badly... but Sandman is the only one to have a website where he mentions me over 100 times (it changes, but currently at 144... GROSS!). <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acsma.sandman.net+snit+OR+glasser>

Snit
...

Sandman
His data is incorrect (as usual) though.

Snit
Again: it comes from Google. Now try to show where Google is wrong. Good luck!

Sandman
These are the times each person has mentioned some other in their *unquoted* text in the last 30 day period (which of course is the part of the post that's important when trying to determine if someone has been talking about someone.

Snit
Google does not split quoted from unquoted... so you are now looking at different stats than I am... in other words you are not saying my data is wrong,

you are saying you would prefer to look at other data

- data that allows you to more easily avoid saying my name and making it look like you are less obsessed. No dice, you silly troll.

And, of course, it does not alter the fact that your obsession is shown via your site...