Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is this really net.wingate?
Message-ID: <854@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 09:59:18 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.854
Posted: Thu Apr  4 09:59:18 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:20:30 EST
References: <4508@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 53
Xref: watmath net.religion:6498 net.religion.christian:570

> When the newslists came out recently, I noticed that Rich contributed 60% of
> net.religion in the last time period.  This piqued my curiosity, so I took
> some statistics:
> 
>     In net.religion:   82 articles
>                        17 posted by rich
>                         8 refer directly to rich
>                        40 pertain to arguments involving rich not in other
>                           two categories
>                        17 have nothing to do with Rich

The statistics showed that 60% of MY articles went to net.religion .  You
should learn how to read statistics.  Furthermore, "40 pertain to arguments
involving Rich not in other two categories" clearly leaves out the 120
articles which refer to arguments that refer to arguments in which the word
'rich' was mentioned.  Thus 142% of the articles revolve around me.  Isn't
that clear, Charles?  What incredibly distorted lengths you'll go to in order
to 1) malign me and 2) avoid answering questions posed to you.

> I should point out that the vast majority of the 40 articles pertain to Don
> Black and the little inquisition which followed.  According to these numbers,
> 80% of this group (by articles) is devoted to Rich's discussion; this number
> is higher when size of articles is taken into account.

Even further furthermore, if Charley Wingate would shut his flaming mouth
about me and start addressing some issues, the percentage of the newsgroup
"devoted to me" would drop by over 150%.  The article I am replying to being
a prime example.  The man is plainly more concerned with showing up a person
who debunks his beliefs and shows him for what he is rather than acting on
his supposed beliefs.

>    In net.r.c:  24 articles
>                  5 posted by rich
>                  7 responses to rich
>                 12 other discussions, of which
>                    7 are the "translations" discussion

> So Rich is using up half of the group.

I'll cut out the 7 responses to me from other people.  Would that satisfy
you?  Of course not.  What would satisfy you is to silence me, so that you
can engage in avoidance.  Join Black's club, Charles.  Smear campaigns in
which you distort facts to malign other people shows your true colors once
again.  Go test some distribution features, Wingate.  Fuck off!  Your
persistent attempts to discredit me just because I've shown you for what you
are smell real bad.

> Draw your own conclusions.

From your data?  I think you want people to draw YOUR own conclusions.
-- 
Meet the new wave, same as the old wave...
      				Rich Rosen     ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr