Re: Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
- From: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Gr0uper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:49:50 -0700
Richard Ulrich wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006 16:12:33 -0700, "Reef Fish"
<Large_Nassau_Gr0uper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
Here are the TOP 10 posters this month:
176 Reef Fish
90 lic...@xxxxxxxxxxx Luis A. Afonso.
-----------------------------------------------------
Reef Fish's posts are all SIGNAL -- whether you recognize it or not.
Afonsos are 100% NOISE. And if you don't know much about
Statistics, you wouldn't understand the Statistical SUBSTANCE in
Reef Fish's posts.
-----------------------------------------------------
I did revise it down to 95% in a later post which Richard ignored,
figuring that was probably 5% random noise generated because of
all the follow-ups to Afonso.
Google-groups shows me 46 threads for Reef Fish today, for September.
Eight of those threads have some statistical content directed to the
original poster.
It gives 181 separate posts.
Up to the point of your writing.
Here are the Subjects: for the 46 threads, which Professor Ling
proclaims to be "all SIGNAL". (Here, I invoke his name in an attempt
to invoke his professionalism.)
For this purpose, I have no problem with it, except you are neither a
person qualified to review ANY posts of statistical substance, and
you merely gave your OPINION about 8 threads out of 46.
Below, I've numbered the eight that are statistical. That is the
count of useful topics. A few other threads, off topic, were possibly
not objectionable to standards for moderators.
Such as THIS topic under which you posted is OFF TOPIC?
Even in the posts against Afonso's NOISE and disruption, there's plenty
of imbedded substance Richard Ulrich probably wouldn't recognize.
Reef Fish's 46 Threads so far in September, numbered, "1*" etc.
=== start of list of "Subject:" lines.
Pointless list of selected "thread:s.. The most BIASED review showing
absolute lack of understanding of what was posted!
A Chapter submitted by Afonso to "Portuguese Statistics" REJECTED
9/11/06 Cartoon for "Portuguese Statistics for Dummies"
These are SATIRICAL posts (explained) to islolate Afonso's NOISE.
Each such post contained "Portuguese Statistics" as keyword to
suppress Afonso's deliberate disruptive noise. It showed that Richard
Ulriched MISSED the explanation, at least TWICE.
Afonso #2 vs Afonso #1 Explanation sought but evaded by the ..
This was posted at least a dozen times -- as the PROOF that there
were at least TWO different Afnosos, each making his own noise.
Each time I asked, then demanded for an explanation, because
one of the Afonsos always claimed there is only ONE Afonso
in this group.
What is a FAQ? It is the acronym for Frequently Asked Questions....
This was also SATIRICAL, trying to suppress the weekly NOISE
by those asking for Cassela and Berger's Solution Manual.
*Normal Approximation provides WRONG conclusions
**Luis A Afonso thread
"Portuguese Statistics for Dummies" hors d'oeuvres
Determining Confidence Levels (was:Re: Filter vs. moderator ...
Luis A. Afonso -- SHUT UP, you libelous scum!
Was that a "thread"??? I merely said that after dozens and dozens
of LIBEL by Afnoso. He finally stopped after my several complaints
to Google, MATH FORUM, and Drexel.
Luis A. Afonso's BUNGLE that the GUILTY verdict in court ..
Did you not recognize the STATISTICAL content in that post?
..
Snip most of the rest of Richard Ulrich's senseless and IGNORANT
review of threads.
Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
beliavsky@xxxxxxx : Famous Quotes on MODERATING sci.stat.math
These are OFF TOPIC in sci.stat.math? Who brought up the subject
and allegation of NOISE and the need for a "moderator" in the group?
Why are YOU, in this thread if it's so OFF TOPIC?
In my post, I had plenty of SUBSTANCE to offer on those topics.
In YOUR post, you only showed you bias and deficient reading of
what was entailed in all of my posts (and threads).
=== end of 46 Subjects:
And Richard Ulrich was wrong about 38 of them, in CONTENT,
in RATIONALE, and in Statistical substance.
Rich Ulrich and Anon Bob represent conventional statistical
intelligence.
Yes, conventional statistical intelligence by QUACKS and those
who malpractice statistics.
No need to rehash MY point. It had all been done in the archives.
Most of the critics of me are BLIND critics -- not having seen much
of what I posted in their SUBSTANCE, and when they did, they
didn't recognize the Quackery of Richard Ulrich, and sided with
Richard and flamed ME. That's exactly the problem with the
sci.stat.math newsgroup.
Bob asks for readers to give feedback about obnoxious posters.
When they give it -- telling him it is HIM -- he attacks them.
Only when there are VALID reasons, such as this post of yours.
I don't mind being criticized for my statistical substance EVER, and
I don't even mind to be criticized about my "tone" of being abrupt
(as spyrian did), but at least syprian has read SOME of my posts
and he recognized that I am NOT the kind of poster most other
blind critics said I am.
In less than a year of posting in sci.stat.math, I had already topped
the ALL TIME list (the posting ID died quite sometime ago, from
being sabbotaged by posters from a different group). I am fairly
sure I've posted at least TWICE the all time Top number.
Wow! Congratulations to you, and to Afonso for his help....
So, what statistical SUBSTANCE I posted that you attacked in this
post? NONE. You didn't even know the substance in those
you did not number and then simply declared them to be non-SIGNAL.
Call that a rough 3,000 posts in sci.stat.math. Go to the advanced
search in Google and search for ANY keyword within the subject of
Statistics, you'll probably find SOME contribution from me on the
subject (you can discount all my responses to Afonso -- even
THERE, quite a bit of statistical SUBSTANCE were contributed,
such as in Hypothesis Testing, p-value, probability, and other
100% topics of statistical substance.)
THEN, you can take issue with ANY of my statistical contribution,
if you know how. You are even welcome to tell me that I treated
anyone too harshly, IF you read enough of what the OTHER person
had said or done, to have been the quid pro quo recipients of my
wrath.
Without doing your homework, and without knowledge, any critic
No, Bob, I disagree. Anyone who tunes in to the group and
is turned-off by your behavior has a right to object.
Yes. Just like YOU do. Out of your OWN ignorance.
Yes. You have a right to do that, as a Quack.
I have the right and the obligation to point out, and SUBSTANTIATE
the fact that you are a Quack in ALL the instances I called you a
Quack.
You have substantiated NOTHING.
is just as ignorant as those who I call Quacks and malpractice
snake-oil salesmen in this group. The characterization, in every
case, was based on, in my judgment, supporting FACTS and
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt!
Yes, it is factually true that we think statistical evidence can be
useful, even from observational studies. Do you want a list of famous
observational studies starring C. Frederick Mosteller?
What's your point?
--
Rich Ulrich, wpilib@xxxxxxxx
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
You are like the Duracell (or whatever brand) battery -- just keeps
on Quacking. I am just paraphrasing what Old Mac User said
about you. He was right on target.
-- Reef Fish Bob.
.
- References:
- Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
- From: Richard Ulrich
- Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
- Prev by Date: Re: HELP: Non-linear regression problem
- Next by Date: Re: Alternative for significance testing
- Previous by thread: Re: Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
- Next by thread: Re: Signal vs Noise in sci.stat.math
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
