Re: Editorial: Guiness World Record for the shortest lived moderated group, "scistatmath"?
- From: "Reef Fish" <large_nassua_grouper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:55:32 -0800
Beliavsky wrote:
Reef Fish obviously has too much time on his hands and has posted many
more messages about the scistatmath Google Group than I have.
And I have posted at least 30 times as many posts in STATISTICS in
the sci.stat.* groups since Feb 2005 than you have.
The traffic on scistatmath has been low, but the messages have been
about statistics,
Two of the three threads initiated by someone asking about questions
at or below the high school level, and getting responses at about the
same level.
and personal attacks have been absent.
The personal attacks in sci.stat.* groups have been mostly by those
whose errors had been corrected, or those like yourself making
gratuitous attacks in the absence of FACTS.
If the next thread on scistatmath occurs 5 years from now, so be it.
Just because of denial that scistatmath is DEAD is irrelevant to
anyone.
The existence of the
group is not hurting anyone (except RF, apparently).
How could it POSSIBLY hurt me?
If anything, my "war" (yes, you can call it that) against the Quacks
and
statistical malpractice folks is finally paying dividends! What's
left in
sci.stat.math since your plagiarised group started has been all
NON-NOISE discussants, except yourself.
m00es is gone. Afonso is still posting in the Math Forum, but is no
longer visible in sci.stat.math. Illywhacker's noise is gone since
Oct 19, more than a month ago, Anon Bob O'Hara has finally learned
to keep his mouth shut on subject he knows nothing abot; and
Richard Ulrich is still around making his usual noise, but his NOISE
has been drowned out by FACTS that it was him who had been
making all the noise.
I am posting STATISTICAL substance as much as I have posting
since early 2005.
For the FIRST time since I started, sci.stat.math has been the CLEAN
neighborhood absent of NOISE bullys and Quacks, as it should have
been long before now.
The REFORM certainly did NOT come from beliavsky and several
others who had made nothing but NOISE about how noisy sci.stat.math
was, when THEY were the ones making the noise.
If someone has a
question about statistics but is turned off by the environment here
created by Reef Fish, he or she is welcome to join scistatmath, a group
RF has promised not to join.
Your group would have been perfect environment for Richard Ulrich.
He would be practice his Quackery and you wouldn't know what is
statistical quackery and what is not; and you would be all too happy
to have some one (any one) in your moribund group!
Several statisticians from the sci.stat.math have joined the group.
Out of curiosity. That was HISTORY that I pointed out. There was
nothing in your group to sustain anyone's interest, not even your
own interest. You have posted more OUTSIDE of your own group
than in it.
RF is quite interested in my qualifications and posting habits. I have
a PhD in physics and have worked as a quantitative financial analyst
for nine years.
As already reflected in the statistics I pointed out from your posting
history tallied by Google. Over 2300 of your threads were OUTSIDE
all of the sci.stat.* groups.
I am well read in time series analysis and have applied
time series and regression models to financial data sets. Obviously,
people can judge my messages by their content, by the follow-ups posted
by others, and by my posting history.
Your LAST post of your own contribution was an ERROR. At least
you accepted the correction and I even congratulated you on it:
RF> You are to be congratulated by seeing and accepting the correction
RF> and move on, rather than Scott, Richard Ulrich, and many others
RF> who create more and more noise by trying to cover up their obvious
RF> errors.
In April 2006, one Chris Chiasson posted the subject, "I'm sure I'll
catch hell for this, but... let's vote reef fish off sci.stat.math" and
he
drew exactly TWO posters agreeing with him, Luis A. Afonso and
beliavsky, and he was as clueless about statistics and sci.stat.math
as Afonso and beliavsky.
So far, scistatmath has not been moderated at all -- no messages have
been held back or removed. Messages will be removed only if they are
obnoxious or off-topic. If people like RF stay away, no moderation will
be necessary.
You're IN PART correct, "If people stay away, no moderation will be
necessary".
People HAVE STAYED away, for very good reasons. Not even
in my wildest imagination (given the number of noise makers about
the noise in sci.stat.math) that your Google group would be such a
spectacular FAILURE. That was why your group earned my
special recognition as stated in the Editorial subject.
Why would anyone in the right mind, statistically speaking, want
an Open Forum discussion to be CENSORED by a physicist,
who wanted to "vote reef fish off sci.stat.math" because Reef Fish
was making enough corrections of others' ERRORS to have
created a new breed of newsgroup posters, whom I termed the
"NOISE BULLYS" who think that by making enough noise, they
can silence the critics of their own errors.
So far, NONE of these Noise Bullys has succeeded, especially
beliavsky, and none ever will, as long as the Reef Fish is
participating in a group and doing HIS job of a statistical "watch
dog" for the malpracticing quacks.
-- Reef Fish Bob.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Editorial: Guiness World Record for the shortest lived moderated group, "scistatmath"?
- Next by Date: Unusual formulae for confidence intervals
- Previous by thread: Re: Editorial: Guiness World Record for the shortest lived moderated group, "scistatmath"?
- Next by thread: Re: Editorial: Guiness World Record for the shortest lived moderated group, "scistatmath"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
