Editorial: Guiness World Record for the shortest lived moderated group, "scistatmath"?
Reef Fish
"scistatmath" he rashlyand impulsively created, with the reason:
b> This group is devoted to mathematical statistics. It was created
b> because sci.stat.math has become too noisy.
beliavsky has a posting history of only 55 threads in sci.stat.math
in 2006, and a life time history of not much more. He is apparently
NOT a statistician (by qualification) and had engaged mostly in
programming software newsgroups. Over 2300 or his 2620
life time posting history in newsgroups were in NON-statistical
groups, the first 10 of 2620 threads named by Google were in:
comp.lang.fortran - Jul 10 2002, 6:20 pm by Beliavsky
rec.games.chess.misc - May 17 2002, 8:49 am by beliav...@aol.com
comp.graphics.apps.gnuplot - Feb 9 2003, 9:05 am by Beliavsky
sci.math.num-analysis - Jan 9 2000, 6:09 am by Beliavsky
comp.lang.fortran - Aug 22 2004, 3:40 pm by beliav...@aol.com
misc.invest.financial-plan - Aug 2 2002, 4:05 am by Beliavsky
sci.math.num-analysis - Feb 2 2004, 2:45 pm by beliav...@aol.com
misc.invest.financial-plan - Jul 20 2002, 3:15 pm by Beliavsky
comp.lang.fortran - Sep 16 2001, 7:30 pm by Beliavsky
sci.math.num-analysis - Jan 31 2004, 10:41 pm by beliav
beliavsky LEAPED (before he looked) on the NOISE raised by a few
during 2006 that sci.stat.math needed a MODERATOR to cut down
the noise, a proposal ALWAYS made by a few who hardly ever
participate in this group, but were the noise makers themselves,
INCLUDING belieavsky!
So, beliavsky made himself the czar of the group he created, to
have the power of "booting" anyone off that he dislikes or anyone
who expressed any view contrary to what HE thought inappropriate.
His fame lasted more than 15 minutes, but short enough to be
declared in Guiness World Record. :-)
scistatmath met its deserved short life in having had a TOTAL of
three threads since its creation, and not a single post since Nov 9.
while it acquired a subscription HIGH of 19, mostly with members of
sci.stat.math who had been low participants but had made errors
in sci.stat.math, pointed out by others, including myself.
It is reasonable to declare scistatmath DEAD as of Nov 9, 2006,
having sustained a life of 11 days, clearly worthy of a Guiness
World Record if beliavsky would submit it to Guiness as such.
Meanwhile, the number of subscribers in sci.stat.math had INCREASED
(during the same period of Oct 30 - Nov 21) from 1292 (noted
by Ulrich) to a thigh of 1342 oday, in a completely monotonic
increasing number of subscribers since I started tracking its
subscription membership, tallied by Google:
G> sci.stat.math -
G> Group description: Statistics from a strictly mathematical
viewpoint.
G> High activity, 1342 subscribers, Usenet
The "High activity" and diversity of statistical topics discussed is
evidenced by the fact that there are NOW 18 different threads
(consisting of 69 posts) whose latest posts were dated Nov 21 or
later.
I hope this post of the short history of scistatmath (which I consider
as an INAPPROPRIATE plagarism of the USENET newsgroup name
of sci.stat.math) a lesson to future NOISE makers who wants a
moderator to act as censor in an Open Forum in which every
member IS a moderator, if s/he acts responsibly.
-- Reef Fish Bob.
Beliavsky
more messages about the scistatmath Google Group than I have. The
traffic on scistatmath has been low, but the messages have been about
statistics, and personal attacks have been absent. If the next thread
on scistatmath occurs 5 years from now, so be it. The existence of the
group is not hurting anyone (except RF, apparently). 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. Several statisticians from the
sci.stat.math have joined the group.
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. 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.
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.
Reef Fish
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.
Lou Thraki
Reef Fish wrote:
> 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.
So maybe you deserve a place in the Guiness Book of Records ;-)
Reef Fish
Smiley noted.
Actually no. If you knew how to use Google to do the necessary
research,
you would have known that I am not even in the top list of "most
frequent
posters" in USENET newsgroups, not even the top 100, or perhaps the
top 1000. I KNOW some of these "most frequent posters" not only by
their
posting names, but some of them have over 100 posting ALIAS names. :-)
ALL of my posts in sci.stat.math (including those AGAINST the quackery
and malpractice of others) are of STATISTICAL substance, or about
statsitical substance (as in the present Editorial thread).
You or anyone else is more than welcome to question any of my posts for
statistical content, as Greg Heath just did, when I corrected him
ridiculing
Stephen Herschkorn when BOTH of them were quite unaware of the
linear regression assumptions and the meaning of "INDEPDENDENT
variables" in a regression problem.
It is that kind of blunder, made by people who frequently make post in
their
attempt to help other posters, and yet make the WORST blunders
themselves
that need to be pointed out.
I am doing that job in this group as the "watch dog" for staisticla
quackery,
as Karl Pearson had done in part years and years ago, in his oft-quoted
passenge by me in this groups, made aware to me by DZ.
-- Reef Fish Bob.
Greg Heath
> Lou Thraki wrote:
> > Reef Fish wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > So maybe you deserve a place in the Guiness Book of Records ;-)
>
> Smiley noted.
>
> Actually no. If you knew how to use Google to do the necessary
> research,
> you would have known that I am not even in the top list of "most
> frequent
> posters" in USENET newsgroups, not even the top 100, or perhaps the
> top 1000. I KNOW some of these "most frequent posters" not only by
> their
> posting names, but some of them have over 100 posting ALIAS names. :-)
>
> ALL of my posts in sci.stat.math (including those AGAINST the quackery
> and malpractice of others) are of STATISTICAL substance, or about
> statsitical substance (as in the present Editorial thread).
>
> You or anyone else is more than welcome to question any of my posts for
> statistical content, as Greg Heath just did,
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU NOT TO DO.
IT IS A LOW-LIFE, UNSCRUPULOUS, UNETHICAL
APROACH.
AGAIN, FOR THE FOURTH TIME:
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DIRECT REPLIES TO
MY POSTS.
HOWEVER,
DO NOT MENTION MY NAME, BEHIND MY BACK,
IN A THREAD THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN MY
PARTICIPATION.
THANK YOU!
GREG HEATH
Reef Fish
Greg Heath wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > Lou Thraki wrote:
> > > Reef Fish wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > So maybe you deserve a place in the Guiness Book of Records ;-)
> >
> > Smiley noted.
> >
> > and malpractice of others) are of STATISTICAL substance, or about
> > statsitical substance (as in the present Editorial thread).
> >
> > You or anyone else is more than welcome to question any of my posts for
> > statistical content, as Greg Heath just did,
>
> THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU NOT TO DO.
Greg, NOBODY tells me what to do or what to do. Your head is getting
over-swollen in the thread ridiculing Stephen Hershkorn. You had
REQUESTED that I don't mention you among other well-known noise
makers and statistical Quacks in this group, at the time you seemed to
have REFORMED, by sticking to things that you knew something about
rather than making blunders like you had been doing before.
I had honored your request NOT to mention you as one of the most
frequent NOISE makers (even though you had clearly been one), and
that was why in the SECOND post of this thread, I mentioned ALL the
well-known NOISE BULLYs in sci.stat.math, EXCEPT Greg Heath:
RF> m00es is gone. Afonso is still posting in the Math Forum, but is
no
RF> longer visible in sci.stat.math. Illywhacker's noise is gone
since
RF> Oct 19, more than a month ago, Anon Bob O'Hara has finally learned
RF> to keep his mouth shut on subject he knows nothing abot; and
RF> Richard Ulrich is still around making his usual noise, but his
NOISE
RF> has been drowned out by FACTS that it was him who had been
RF> making all the noise.
> IT IS A LOW-LIFE, UNSCRUPULOUS, UNETHICAL APROACH.
For putting you BACK on the list when you were back to your BAD
behavior or not only making errors (in the Jerry/Hershkorn/Heath
thread), but re-started being a SMART ASS (I had called you a "wise
dockey" in that thread when you made your gratuitous NOISE for
the 3rd and 4th time.
>
> AGAIN, FOR THE FOURTH TIME:
It doesn't matter,Greg, HOW MANY time you make your NOISE --
you have blown your own cover. You have lost what I had kindly
granted you -- now you'll be reminded that you had been one of
the WORST noise makers in the history of sci.stat.math during my
presence since early 2005.
>
> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DIRECT REPLIES TO
> MY POSTS.
I pointed out your ERRORS in the Jerry/Herschkorn/Heath thread.
Everyone had been silent about the error except Greg Heath who
made not just ONE NOISY POST:
GH> Welcome to the thread, provided you have something
GH> useful to add.
GH> And now Reef Fish is wrong because he professes
GH> to know the answer when he is just guessing and
GH> crossing his fingers so that he can boost his number
GH> of posting counts up by 1.
But a SECOND post, after my explanation of Greg's error
about the properties of an "independent variable" in regression:
GH> However, you blew it by just trying to use the post
GH> to up your posting count (which for some reason
GH> is is very important to you).
and a THIRD,
RF> that's what everyone (not necessarily Jerry) who tries
RF> to help him SHOULD know, because it had been posted
RF> over and over again, in lengthy threads in sci.stat.math.
Greg Heath did no better then trying to cover his OWN error
by suggesting implying that HE should not need to know that
the independent variables are NOT stochastically independent
after I pointed out 10 length threads in the Google archives
that were hits on the search of "linear independence and
stochastic independence" with Reef Fish being the author.
GH> It was simply a question of what Jerry meant, not what
GH> every one should know.
and now up to the 4th, 5th, and more, spreading over a different
thread (this one) on beliavsky and scistatmath.
> HOWEVER,
>
> DO NOT MENTION MY NAME, BEHIND MY BACK,
You are such a SILLY, bloated block-head that you call my PUBLIC
posting a mention of your name "behind your back"?
You are so delusional that even Stephen Hershkorn said of you
while you were ridiculing HIM (when YOU were making the same error)
SH on GH> Touchy, Touchy!
> IN A THREAD THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN MY
> PARTICIPATION.
> GREG HEATH
Greg, henceforth, I can name you as a NOISE maker of sci.stat.math
ANYTIME I feel it's in CONTEXT of what I post, because you had given
uneqivocal proof in the sci.stat.math archives that you ARE one of the
WORSE noise makers, besides being ignorant about various matters
relating to the regression topic!
You NOISE even went so far as polluting THIS thread which is about
the noise makers in sci.stat.math and the spectacular failure of
belieavsky's plagiarised Google group scistatmath.
Greg Heath's ERRORS are FACTS (forever recorded in the Google
archives) that anyone can see!
Live with them, Greg.
-- Reef Fish Bob.
Greg Heath
> Greg Heath wrote:
> > Reef Fish wrote:
> > > Lou Thraki wrote:
> > > > Reef Fish wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > So maybe you deserve a place in the Guiness Book of Records ;-)
> > >
> > > Smiley noted.
> > >
> > > ALL of my posts in sci.stat.math (including those AGAINST the quackery
> > > and malpractice of others) are of STATISTICAL substance, or about
> > > statsitical substance (as in the present Editorial thread).
> > >
> > > You or anyone else is more than welcome to question any of my posts for
> > > statistical content, as Greg Heath just did,
> >
> > THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU NOT TO DO.
>
> Greg, NOBODY tells me what to do or what to do.
What about what not to do?
Reef, you are beginning this post with a bold-faced lie.
ANYONE can tell you what to do or what not to do.
Put some thought into your sentences. However, why
should I expect you to do that when you don't put any
thought into interpreting the sentences of others.
> Your head is getting
> over-swollen in the thread ridiculing Stephen Hershkorn.
Except for using the term "self-proclaimed", I thought the
remainder of the exchange was rather civil.
> You had
> REQUESTED that I don't mention you among other well-known noise
> makers and statistical Quacks in this group, at the time you seemed to
> have REFORMED, by sticking to things that you knew something about
> rather than making blunders like you had been doing before.
>
> I had honored your request NOT to mention you as one of the most
> frequent NOISE makers (even though you had clearly been one), and
> that was why in the SECOND post of this thread, I mentioned ALL the
> well-known NOISE BULLYs in sci.stat.math, EXCEPT Greg Heath:
>
> RF> m00es is gone. Afonso is still posting in the Math Forum, but is
> no
> RF> longer visible in sci.stat.math. Illywhacker's noise is gone
> since
> RF> Oct 19, more than a month ago, Anon Bob O'Hara has finally learned
> RF> to keep his mouth shut on subject he knows nothing abot; and
> RF> Richard Ulrich is still around making his usual noise, but his
> NOISE
> RF> has been drowned out by FACTS that it was him who had been
> RF> making all the noise.
Reef, there is no useful purpose to any of those sentences.
Regular readers of the group know whos advice is always good,
good most of the time, good some of the time, and is never good.
In addition, it doesn't take long for new readers to reach that level
of understanding. A self-proclaimed watch dog is unnecessary.
If you disappeared, bad advice would invoke correcting
replies from others and the sun would still come up tomorrow.
Reef, face the music:
You are not only unnecessary, you are also insufficient.
> > IT IS A LOW-LIFE, UNSCRUPULOUS, UNETHICAL APROACH.
>
> For putting you BACK on the list
No, for mentioning my name, behind my back, in a thread in which
I had not posted.
> when you were back to your BAD
> behavior or not only making errors (in the Jerry/Hershkorn/Heath
> thread), but re-started being a SMART ASS (I had called you a "wise
> dockey"
Boy, aren't you clever...and what a vocabulary! I don't
even know what a dockey is.
> in that thread when you made your gratuitous NOISE for
> the 3rd and 4th time.
> >
> > AGAIN, FOR THE FOURTH TIME:
>
> It doesn't matter,Greg, HOW MANY time you make your NOISE --
> you have blown your own cover. You have lost what I had kindly
> granted you -- now you'll be reminded that you had been one of
> the WORST noise makers in the history of sci.stat.math during my
> presence since early 2005.
Coming from you, that could be considered a compliment.
> > I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DIRECT REPLIES TO
> > MY POSTS.
>
> I pointed out your ERRORS in the Jerry/Herschkorn/Heath thread.
> Everyone had been silent about the error except Greg Heath who
> made not just ONE NOISY POST:
>
> GH> Welcome to the thread, provided you have something
> GH> useful to add.
>
> GH> And now Reef Fish is wrong because he professes
> GH> to know the answer when he is just guessing and
> GH> crossing his fingers so that he can boost his number
> GH> of posting counts up by 1.
>
> But a SECOND post, after my explanation of Greg's error
> about the properties of an "independent variable" in regression:
>
> GH> However, you blew it by just trying to use the post
> GH> to up your posting count (which for some reason
> GH> is is very important to you).
>
> and a THIRD,
>
> RF> that's what everyone (not necessarily Jerry) who tries
> RF> to help him SHOULD know, because it had been posted
> RF> over and over again, in lengthy threads in sci.stat.math.
>
> Greg Heath did no better then trying to cover his OWN error
> by suggesting implying that HE should not need to know that
> the independent variables are NOT stochastically independent
Greg didn't imply that. Reef erroneously inferred that.
> after I pointed out 10 length threads in the Google archives
> that were hits on the search of "linear independence and
> stochastic independence" with Reef Fish being the author.
>
> GH> It was simply a question of what Jerry meant, not what
> GH> every one should know.
>
> and now up to the 4th, 5th, and more, spreading over a different
> thread (this one) on beliavsky and scistatmath.
>
> > HOWEVER,
> >
> > DO NOT MENTION MY NAME, BEHIND MY BACK,
>
> You are such a SILLY, bloated block-head that you call my PUBLIC
> posting a mention of your name "behind your back"?
I have no reason to read all posts in this group. I do read followups
to posts in which I create or reply. Gratuitously mentioning my
name in another thread in which I took no part is the low-life,
unscupulous and unethical act of a pompous blow-hard.
Reef, you may be a good scuba diver, however, you can't
walk on water.
> You are so delusional that even Stephen Hershkorn said of you
> while you were ridiculing HIM (when YOU were making the same error)
>
> SH on GH> Touchy, Touchy!
Reef, get your facts straight. That was my reply to him!
Should I attribute that ERROR to a deteriorating photographic
memory or some other mental defect?
> > IN A THREAD THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN MY
> > PARTICIPATION.
>
> > GREG HEATH
>
> Greg, henceforth, I can name you as a NOISE maker of sci.stat.math
> ANYTIME I feel it's in CONTEXT of what I post, because you had given
> uneqivocal proof in the sci.stat.math archives that you ARE one of the
> WORSE noise makers, besides being ignorant about various matters
> relating to the regression topic!
>
> You NOISE even went so far as polluting THIS thread which is about
> the noise makers in sci.stat.math and the spectacular failure of
> belieavsky's plagiarised Google group scistatmath.
>
> Greg Heath's ERRORS are FACTS (forever recorded in the Google
> archives) that anyone can see!
>
> Live with them, Greg.
Reef, I can live with my real errors (different than those fabricated
or fantasized by you).
Unfortunately, you have to live with yourself.
Have a good day.
Greg
Reef Fish
Greg Heath wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > Greg Heath wrote:
> > > Reef Fish wrote:
> > > > Lou Thraki wrote:
> > > > > Reef Fish wrote:
> > > > > > Beliavsky wrote:
> > > > You or anyone else is more than welcome to question any of my posts for
> > > > statistical content, as Greg Heath just did,
> > >
> > > THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TOLD YOU NOT TO DO.
> >
> > Greg, NOBODY tells me what to do or what to do.
>
> What about what not to do?
>
> Reef, you are beginning this post with a bold-faced lie.
>
> ANYONE can tell you what to do or what not to do.
>
> Put some thought into your sentences.
Grasping at straws, now descended to OBVIOUS "pseudo typos".
Anyone CAN tell me what to do, but NOBODY who has more than
two brain cells "tells me what to do" in your clueless manner of
speech and expect to get any result.
That's the FULL CONTEXT of what you SHOULD have been
able to parse the omitted "word" to get the message.
> > Your head is getting
> > over-swollen in the thread ridiculing Stephen Hershkorn.
>
> Except for using the term "self-proclaimed", I thought the
> remainder of the exchange was rather civil.
Civil or non-civil is another matter. The FACT was that you were
ridiculing Stephen when YOU were making the SAME ERROR.
Now parse that sentence for CONTENT.
>
> > You had
> > REQUESTED that I don't mention you among other well-known noise
> > makers and statistical Quacks in this group, at the time you seemed to
> > have REFORMED, by sticking to things that you knew something about
> > rather than making blunders like you had been doing before.
> >
> > I had honored your request NOT to mention you as one of the most
> > frequent NOISE makers (even though you had clearly been one), and
> > that was why in the SECOND post of this thread, I mentioned ALL the
> > well-known NOISE BULLYs in sci.stat.math, EXCEPT Greg Heath:
> >
> > RF> m00es is gone. Afonso is still posting in the Math Forum, but is
> > no
> > RF> longer visible in sci.stat.math. Illywhacker's noise is gone
> > since
> > RF> Oct 19, more than a month ago, Anon Bob O'Hara has finally learned
> > RF> to keep his mouth shut on subject he knows nothing abot; and
> > RF> Richard Ulrich is still around making his usual noise, but his
> > NOISE
> > RF> has been drowned out by FACTS that it was him who had been
> > RF> making all the noise.
>
> Reef, there is no useful purpose to any of those sentences.
> Regular readers of the group know whos advice is always good,
> good most of the time, good some of the time, and is never good.
That's why I have credibility, and Greg Heath has NONE, on matters
of statistical content and substance.
> If you disappeared, bad advice would invoke correcting
> replies from others and the sun would still come up tomorrow.
Bad advise did NOT invoke correction from 1995 (when Richard
Ulrich started giving bad advice) through 2004 on the same bad
advice that I started correcting him in 2005 -- dozens of them.
Greg Heath's ERRORS would have gone unnoticed or
unmentioned by anyone in sci.stat.math had I not been there
catching them for others.
>
> Reef, face the music:
Greg Heath, you are the one who should face the music, for
your ERRORS, and for being exposed to be one of the
WORST noise makers trying to excuse yourself.
>
> You are not only unnecessary, you are also insufficient.
>
> > > IT IS A LOW-LIFE, UNSCRUPULOUS, UNETHICAL APROACH.
> >
> > For putting you BACK on the list
>
> No, for mentioning my name, behind my back, in a thread in which
> I had not posted.
You're just repeating your same INSANE remark about a PUBLIC
post on and about sci.stat.math as something "behind your back"!
>
> > when you were back to your BAD
> > behavior or not only making errors (in the Jerry/Hershkorn/Heath
> > thread), but re-started being a SMART ASS (I had called you a "wise
> > dockey"
>
> Boy, aren't you clever...and what a vocabulary! I don't
> even know what a dockey is.
Actually you probably didn't. It is NOT an ASS. I just
wanted to make it clear I meant your were a "smart ass" in
your posts about Stephen and the rest of the NOISE you
made.
>
> > in that thread when you made your gratuitous NOISE for
> > the 3rd and 4th time.
> > >
> > > AGAIN, FOR THE FOURTH TIME:
> >
> > It doesn't matter,Greg, HOW MANY time you make your NOISE --
> > you have blown your own cover. You have lost what I had kindly
> > granted you -- now you'll be reminded that you had been one of
> > the WORST noise makers in the history of sci.stat.math during my
> > presence since early 2005.
>
> Coming from you, that could be considered a compliment.
Then take it as a compliment then. NOBODY who has more than
two brain cells ever make 10 posts of NOISE over my compliments.
>
> > > I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DIRECT REPLIES TO
> > > MY POSTS.
I cut the rest of the NOISE because they were, as those parts above,
deja vu.
LIVE with your ERRORS, Greg.
No amount of NOISE by you is going to change the errors you
made, or the NOISE you made trying to bully me into stopping
my correction or mention of your statistical errors in this group!
-- Reef Fish Bob.