My Subjective Assessment of the current frequent posters in sci.stat.math

This month's top posters (10 pm May 11; sci.stat.math)
Google's tally of THREADS, not actual number of postings.

75 large_nassau_grou...@xxxxxxxxx
51 lic...@xxxxxxxxxxx Luis A. Afonso (PURE 100%
NOISE)
16 rich.ulr...@xxxxxxxxxxx RIchard Ulrich
16 bob.oh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anon Bob O'Hara (99% NOISE)
13 kevin.tho...@xxxxxxxxxxx Kevin E. Thorpe (100% good SIGNAL)
12 jtom...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Jack Tomsky (100% good SIGNAL)
11 doe_s...@xxxxxxxxxxx David Wisenmius(?)(?)(?)
8 bwea...@xxxxxxxxxxxx Bruce Weaver (Always Good Discussant)
8 dahei...@xxxxxxx David Heiser (Almost always
Good Discussant)
6 daj...@xxxxxxxxx David Jones (Always Good Info
and Discussions)

My number of threads reflects the fact that I responded to more than
a few of Afonso's posts, and I also followed up on posts of ALL of the
other Top 9.

It had not occurred to me that the above data almost coincided with
my remark earlier today (before seeing this tally) in the thread David
Heiser initiated, about an Alternative Web Site for Discussions.

RF> Perhaps we can encourage those (SNIP) to subscribe to
RF> THAT list, and that would certainly tremendously enhance the
RF> quality of sci.stat.* WITHOUT them here, not to mention the
RF> NOISE generated by Luis A. Afonso single-handedly.

The snipped names were Afonso, Ulrich, and O'Hara, the top 2nd,
3rd, and 4th most frequent posters.

What's left would have been good signals and discussions, with the
exception of "David Wisenmius" who is an outlier because he seems
to possess three entirely different personalities (as in the Three
Faces
of Eve) when he posts. It's noise, signal, or fantasy depending on
which of the three Faces was posting.

The only other exception to my brief characterizations above is
Richard Ulrich. Richard is well-known for his 10 years of quackery
and malpractice of statistics, and his incessant noise since I started
participating in these groups in 2005.

But Richard has shown much signs of improvement. He has
learned from some of the discussions though he is still looking
for any opening, the slightest excuse, to re-hash his old
quackery, even though they did not fit the subject of discussion.
But the frequency of his NOISE has certainly diminished and he
is actually settling down to engage in discussions with others
on subjects he does, or seem to, know something about.

An additional note about Luis Afonso. I now see WHY he is starting
a NEW SUBJECT (usually derogatory or unrelated to an ongoing
topic in an existing thread) every chance he had.

I had already attributed that to EVASION and obfuscation -- no
body can follow his trail of statistical crimes except me (my
near-photo memory aided by the Google archives), because
hardly anyone ever reads his posts, and those few who do, were
unlikely to be able to weed through his lies, distortion of facts
and dates, and history, in his disruptive posting style!

But a NEW hypothesis has just emerged -- Luis A. Afonso was
iusing his constant change of SUBJECT (even though most
of them have only him as the author, he must be doing that
to artificially RAISE his Google COUNT of threads, so that
he could tell his Portuguese friends who can't read English
what a CONTRIBUTOR he is, in the sci.stat.math group, by
his bean counting. :-) THAT must be it!

In a way, he is not unlike many in academia in the US -- they
count numbers of papers -- whether it's pure garbage is usually
beyond the ability of judgment by the "administrators" who invented
the bean-counting system -- for the purpose of "publish or perish". :-)

LAST but not least -- some of the BEST contributions came
from those who either (a) practice Silence is Golden, or (b)
caught in the bean-counting system and realized that no
matter how good a post in sci.stat.math is, it doesn't count
in the bean-counting system for retention, promotion, or
salary raises.

Just a bit of my editorial and Bayesian subjective analysis.
Call it a Rant if you wish. Do whatever you wish with it. <G>

-- Bob.

.

Relevant Pages