Google| Subject | Re: Sandman's obsession with Snit is EXTREME! |
| From | Marek Novotny |
| Date | 02/20/2017 23:57 (02/20/2017 16:57) |
| Message-ID | <yeqdnQd4VKvb6TbFnZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Snit (1h & 20m) |
On 2017-02-20, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanI should save a few of your statistics. It does wrap logic around the issue rather than entertaining a lot of bullshit.
In article <D4D06E65.90B59%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:SandmanGreyCloudSnit
Guffaw!!! Define obsession... you can't.
Already done, in the above links (having 50% or more of your posts be ABOUT someone
Snit's posts that are ABOUT other people that are not in RESPONSE to those persons: 70%
My posts ABOUT Snit that are not in response TO Snit: 4.9%
Just because you spread your obsession over more than one person doesn't make you less obsessed with them.
It's like saying "You're a criminal if more than 50% of your income comes from stealing money from someone" and claim that you're not a criminal when 70% of your own income comes from stealing from ten different people.
Like I said, don't define your terms with measurable data, you never come out on top with that. You really should stick with things like "'cause I say so". It won't help the actual claim, but it wouldn't be as easy to shove down your throat with actual data. :)
-- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
02/20/2017
