Wally
On 5/3/07 12:08 PM, in article C210D7BC.7A167%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID, "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>wrote:

Snit
"Wally" <wally@wally.world.net>stated in post C211ADA7.2C0F7%wally@wally.world.net on 3/4/07 7:22 PM:

Wally
On 4/3/07 11:27 PM, in article C210254E.7A040%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID, "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>wrote:

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!

Wally
So once again you are seen formulating a question around an answer that you have already decided that you need to receive? Sad to be you Snit!

Snit
Incorrect: my data is directly from Google... for Sandman to claim my data is incorrect would mean that I am somehow controlling Google!

Wally
Not at all! It *is* incorrect when considering the reason that you claim to have posted it! it does not serve the purpose ..therefore is wrong wrt your conclusions...it's that easy Snit!

Snit
Sandman played a silly game where he decided he would prefer to not look at how often his posts contain references to me and instead wanted to look at posts only where he specifically mentions my name... which he avoids doing to keep *that* stat down.

Wally
No! he looked at your conclusions and noted the inaccuracies contained in your data leading to those conclusions...and perfected the method to achieve your stated aims! You should thank him!

Snit
You can argue, if you like, that you think his stat or mine is the more relevant one...

Wally
There is no argument if your stated aims wrt the data is correct, his method may not be perfect but is a whole lot more accurate than yours!

Snit
but to claim my stat is not incorrect means that, somehow, Sandman thinks I altered the Google record.

Wally
Did you mean to say ... "is not incorrect" surely not!

In any event you are wrong in your assumption, he has merely claimed and demonstrated why it is wrong considering your conclusions! Nobody is blaming Google for your inadequacies Snit!

You have tried this 'altering the Google record' straw man many times before Snit this time won't work any better that previous attempts!

Snit
I have called him on his game... and yet you will defend him.

Wally
Perhaps because I appreciate the difference between 'calling' and 'proving'?

Snit
This is what you do, Wally...

Wally
Thank you!

Snit
you are simply not capable of being honest..

I understand

Wally
Very little judging by your last remark!

Snit
that and shall not pretend that there is any chance of you actually admitting to the facts.

Wally
Those still to be proven allusive facts Snit? Absolutely no chance of me admitting to those...thank goodness!

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,

Wally
Given the stated purpose of your data what part of .... "His data is incorrect" don't you understand?

Snit
My data is as correct as the Google record.

Wally
But does not serve it's intended purpose in the slightest!

Snit
you are saying you would prefer to look at other data

Wally
Correct!...accurate data! you stated the objective of the data Snit...to define who is obsessed with who! As such your data does not achieve that objective...therefore it is wrong!

Snit
His data does a less accurate job... but neither is a perfect way of looking at things.

Wally
His data does differentiate between quoted and unquoted text but you claim it does a "less accurate" job wrt the stated aim of the data?..how so?

Sandman's data does a far better job in achieving *your* objective...get over it, and learn the lesson that Sandman gives you wrt data collection!

Snit
Aha! Now you are, perhaps, trying to make a point you could, if you were not a lying troll, support - that you think his data is the better indicator.

Wally
He has removed some if not all of the anomalies associated with how you collected your data! what other support is needed?

Snit
Your belief, if that is truly how you feel, is impossible to determine

Wally
It's extremely easy for me to determine what I believe Snit, I am willing to share that belief with you, but be under no delusion that how you view my beliefs are of any concern to me!

Snit
based on the fact that you are repeatedly lying in the very post you state such a thing.

Wally
And you have demonstrated time and time again that what you term a lie is based on nothing more than bigotry Snit!

Snit
Do you *really* believe that or is it another of your lies... how is one to know?

Wally
Why should you care? I have offered my opinion, smack it around, prove it wrong if you can I don't mind, if you are convincing who knows I may even change my mind, I am always open to that as any thinking person should be...but don't for one second think that I care about how you view what I believe Snit!

Snit
- 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.

Wally
The fact that you cannot see the worth in differentiating between quoted and unquoted is a good indicator of who is being silly here!

Snit
Ah, and here comes your straw man... I was wondering when you would spew one.

Wally
Removing a flaw inherent in how you collected your data is a ..."straw man" Snit? ROTFL

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

Wally
That you are obsessed with? What are the latest numbers there Snit? LOL!

Snit
Er? I do not control Sandman's site... when Sandman has my name listed on over 100 pages on his site, well, it is clear he is obsessive.

Wally
And if you were to have copies of these more than 100 pages that would show what in your view Snit?