Re: Richard Ulrich is trying to name smear AGAIN!
- From: Richard Ulrich <Rich.Ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:00:42 -0400
On 13 Jul 2006 16:43:49 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Gr0uper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob does not say much that is interesting in this post.
He seems to be writing, once again, in a stream of
consciousness that is spurred by individual words,
barely relating to my communication.
Here are a few reactions of my own.
Richard Ulrich wrote:
about Googling -
On 13 Jul 2006 09:59:06 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Gr0uper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
You snip the MOST important part that NOBODY ELSE posts by
the name Reef Fish (in the Google archives of all USENET groups
since 1981).
Why would that be important to me?
Bob misses my points. I use his name (1) to bother him,
and (2) to possibly shame him. Further, it (3) supplies an
*additional* Keyword for effective searching. That last is
a point of reasoning that Bob seems to miss, over and over.
That being the case, and the fact that I post by the same posting
name Reef Fish in sci.stat.* groups, as I've done in ALL newsgroups
since 1992, why do you think Richard Ulrich, for MONTHS, kept
insisting on "Bob Ling wrote" when the post says "Reef Fish wrote"?
Ah, that "Reef Fish wrote" is misleading, since it suggests that
I delete the intro-lines that say "Reef Fish." I never to do that.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that Richard is
trying to draw attention to the fact that there are OTHERS who
tried to smear my professional name in OTHER groups that
are NOT statistics related, and those name-smearers didn't
I still am not aware that the others are attacking Bob's
"professional name." From the Google-intros, it appeared that
they were attacking Bob for attacks, whining, bad Googling.
Bob would have a different posting style if he cared about *that*.
Re: Bob's use of a new subject line, "...trying to smear his
name AGAIN!"
Here is the URL for a bit on valid ad-hominem,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Validity
"Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and
not the evidence (or premise) of an argument."
What I point to about Bob's reputation is relevant to his own
attacks, ad-hominem and ad-hominem-with-intimation.
Since "ad-hominem" is a major tool of Bob's logic, I am
thereby undermining the evidence and premise of his arguments.
The reader, who may be a new Bob-victim, should be aware
that he has a large peer-group of victims-without-a-fault. So,
don't take it too seriously.
Finding those Posts critical of Bob was serendipitous.
Google-groups happened to lead to those, and I was impressed,
and I shared it.
The reader who sees Bob attack me can be aware that Bob
is promiscuous and careless in his attacks, both "who" and "what."
The reader who sees Bob attack me for "smearing Bob" should
be aware that "smearing" is Bob's standard style of argument,
not mine -- I'm one target among many; Bob is a target as a
special case, and I am not so careless in what I say.
-- I explained before why "Quack" is a bad choice, and applies
more conventionally to his role than to mine.
[snip - mode/average; personal abuse of me;
irrelevant comments about Googling.]
Richard Ulrich couldn't find anything in STATISTICS to smear me
about, so he resorts to using OTHER group's flamers as HIS skill
in googling, while missing nearly ALL of my professional work
and reputation in statistics.
Assuming Bob keeps a high profile, I will be returning to more
posts on my Theory of Bob, which does highlight some of his
failings in giving statistical advice. The items will not be
news to him. On the other hand, I think that I have always been
respectful of a certain scope of Bob's knowledge and
achievement in statistics. By contrast, Bob seems incapable
of recognizing any good quality or merit in me or in any of his
selected enemies.
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Richard Ulrich is trying to name smear AGAIN!
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Richard Ulrich is trying to name smear AGAIN!
- References:
- Re: Is sum of two normally distributed variables normally distributed?
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Is sum of two normally distributed variables normally distributed?
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Richard Ulrich is trying to name smear AGAIN!
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Is sum of two normally distributed variables normally distributed?
- Prev by Date: Piecewise constant approximation
- Next by Date: Algorithm for approximating a "moving" percentile statistic?
- Previous by thread: Re: Bob Ling is trying to smear his own name AGAIN!
- Next by thread: Re: Richard Ulrich is trying to name smear AGAIN!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
