Re: Richard Ulrich is trying to name smear AGAIN!


Richard Ulrich wrote:
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.

I was explaining to Janusz on WHY I have been posting with
the name "Reef Fish" in ALL newsgroups since 1992, one of
which was

RF> Results 1 - 10 of about 3,820,000 for Bob Ling. (0.17 seconds)

and Richard Ulrich snipped this relevant part

RF> about 3,821,990 of the Google hits would have been the
RF> WRONG Bob Ling, including the first of the 3,820,000:

when he jumped in with his irrelevance:

Ulrich> When I searched on < "Bob Ling" >, I got 1780.
Several of those are threads about Bob's lack of skill at Googling.

and Ulrich also snipped the MOST RELEVANT part of my post
explaining to Janusz about my use of the "Reef Fish" posting name.

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?

Why should I care whether it's important to Richard Ulrich or not?
I DON'T post by the name "Bob Ling". I ALWAYS post by the
name "Reef Fish" (and google's author = 'reef fish' search now
found 10,100 posts, all of mine except a few by a forger using
"Reef Fish" and "Large_Nasty_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx as the
forged posting ID).


Bob misses my points. I use his name (1) to bother him,
and (2) to possibly shame him.

I didn't miss those points at all, except Richard failed in (2)
miserably. I even pointed out Ulrich was aligning himself
with the worst of the flamers in other newsgroups, for his
ad hominem attack while he made the silly accusation about
"Bob's lack of skill at Googling".

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

Richard snipped the REST of that paragraph which was the REAL
reason he jumped into this thread (MODE vs AVERAGE):

RF> even know that the MODE is not an AVERAGE, or that I
RF> know something about matrices. :-) So, Richard Ulrich,
RF> the biggest Abuser of Statistics, and the resident Quack,
RF> was doing his best to align with the other FLAMERS for
RF> the same silly reason of name-smearing.

because unbeknownst to me at the time that when the topic
was introduced by me in April 2005, Richard was the ONLY
person in sci.stat.math who aligned with those who argued
that a mode IS an "average"!

< the rest of Ulrich's impertinence snipped, about his accusation
of my lack of skill in using Google when I was explaining to
Janusz who thought I was trying to hide my real identity when
posted with "Reef Fish">

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.

I mentioned Google WEB search of "RF Ling" as something
Ulrich missed in HIS lack of Google skills, if he insists on using
my name which I DON'T use for newsgroup postings!

Assuming Bob keeps a high profile, I will be returning to more
posts on my Theory of Bob,

Ulrich's "Theory of Bob" was entirely prompted by my reference,
which was NOT intended to single him out when I wrote it

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
RF> even know that the MODE is not an AVERAGE, or that I
RF> know something about matrices. :-)

Elsewhere, I mentioned to Anil on the "Crowd Wisdom" topic,
WITHOUT naming anyone in this group:

RF> and even when I first mentioned that
RF> in sci.stat.math when readers are SUPPOSED to be
RF> familiar with the FACT that "A Mode is NOT an Average".

NOW we know Richard Ulrich was the one! And WHY
Richard was attacking my Google skill as his devious way
of making ad hominem attacks, while evading the issue of
the Mode NOT being an Average.

Richard, I had posted the new thread, FIVE HOURS ago,
<"A statistical Mode is NOT an Average" Revisited> inviting
YOU to rebutt.

Why did you continue your impertinence with my Google skill
while you should have responded to THAT thread?

Your dishonorable intentions (and lack of substance) have
been thoroughly EXPOSED.

-- Reef Fish Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time To Teach Digital Etiquette
    ... they bully OTHERS by making incessant NOISE in the group. ... I spared naming Richard Ulrich this time because Richard ... Quackery, Malpractice, and Ignorance about Statistics, ... The other NOISE makers, m00es, Illywhacker, Bob ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Bob Ling versus normality
    ... > him to look at normality and outliers in the scatterplots of the ... But he certainly does not need Richard Ulrich to make ... > "struggling beginner", ... > -- Bob. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Richard Ulrichs SEVENTH post to distort: His most UNETHICAL proposal to date -- inviting
    ... comments developing the Theory of Bob. ... The responsibility of a poster to give CORRECT and SOUND advice ... many STATISTICAL errors as Richard Ulrich did and still ... thing of substance in STATISTICS. ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Richard Ultich the sci.stat.math resident Quack is beating his Dead Horses AGAIN
    ... Here's a little comment on styles of responding in general, ... Bob Ling gets terribly upset when I cut too many of his words; ... > Now, Richard Ulrich is back, in two tedious replay of his same self- ... > After bungling my advice about the absolute lack of necessity om doing ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Is sum of two normally distributed variables normally distributed?
    ... Several of those are threads about Bob's lack of skill at Googling. ... I am sure including a few posted by Richard Ulrich. ... Bob, you've explicitly challenged me on Googling twice ... FAILED miserably to post ad hominem attacks on Bob Ling ...
    (sci.stat.math)