In article <h5qrk8$1ap$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Can you provide examples which corroborate your allegations of
> > Tim Smith stalking you?
>
> From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 03:43:55 +0000
> From Discussion: Qualcomm wins in Nokia patents case
>
> [quote]
> >> Another fine example of what Mark and Roy consider to be
> >> top-notch Linux advocacy. So, do you know what Qualcomm
> >> does?
> >
> > Really, Tim, aren't you kind of bending low to reply here?
>
> It's best to ignore him. You're giving him attention, which is
> exactly what he wants. He's obviously lonely if he's going
> systemically through thousands of someone's comments in Digg and
> moderate them.
> [/quote]
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/78cd2784e3e68935
Since I didn't go systematically through thousands of his comments, you
fail as usual.
Roy had this theory at the time that the reason his comments usually
went negative was because there was a bunch of people being paid to
spend all their time digging him down. What that theory was not able to
explain was how come the more popular the story that his comment was on,
the lower the score of the comment. That is, if he commented on an
obscure story that would only be read by a few people, his comments
typically went down to -2 or -3. If one of those stories made the front
page, so that many more people would see it, his comments would get
moderated down much much lower.
Unless Microsoft has managed to get to most of the Digg population, the
big moderation down on the popular stores is a true representation of
what the Digg community thought of the quality of Roy's comments. Given
that, the expected outcome is that on the stories that don't make the
front page, his comments will be moderated down, but only go slightly
negative. And guess what, that's what we observe.
Anyway, to test the part of Roy's claim that said it would take someone
a lot of time to moderate all his comments (a key part of his argument
that anyone doing so--if they existed, which he had not shown--must be
paid, because no one would have enough time to do that for free), I
spent *one* *week* moderating all his comments. I moderated each on the
merits, so a couple went up, but most went down. This would have been
maybe 100 comments. After the one week was up I stopped, and reported
the results (which were that it would only take someone a few minutes a
day).
BTW, note that a corollary of Roy's argument is that Roy was being paid
to comment on Digg. Writing a comment takes longer than moderating a
comment, so if total time to moderate all of his comments is above the
maximum time that one can give for free, then so is writing all those
comments.
Roy's inability to grasp that inherent flaw in his argument, and his
inability to use the moderation data from the stories that made the
front page to understand the expected moderation of his comments on the
less popular stories probably explain why he has failed so far in his
attempts to get a PhD. He does not have the analytical abilities needed
for science.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
