Quirks of Google groups statistics
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Quirks of Google groups statistics
Checking my profile in dread after the recent flurry of attacks and
counterattacks (and slightly dreading that my count for March would
overtake even MA-R's high of 502 in last November [was he off his meds
that month?]), I was confused to see I only posted thirty items in
March (and nothing in the current month).
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... 1bCg&hl=en
MA-R is showing 20 for March (as if) and also nothing in April.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... Ct1A&hl=en
While Adrian Channing shows nothing since last August (yet I'm sure I
saw his name here recently).
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... 9UFw&hl=en
Any theory about what is up with the whacky Google stats? Or are they
always a little behind/ incorrect?
counterattacks (and slightly dreading that my count for March would
overtake even MA-R's high of 502 in last November [was he off his meds
that month?]), I was confused to see I only posted thirty items in
March (and nothing in the current month).
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... 1bCg&hl=en
MA-R is showing 20 for March (as if) and also nothing in April.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... Ct1A&hl=en
While Adrian Channing shows nothing since last August (yet I'm sure I
saw his name here recently).
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... 9UFw&hl=en
Any theory about what is up with the whacky Google stats? Or are they
always a little behind/ incorrect?
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
And Brad Verity's is only updated through Feb. 2007 ...
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... i1Vg&hl=en
One slight factual error in my first posting: MAR's prodigious record
of 502 came in November 2005, not November 2006.
I wonder why that webpage on Stanbury felt they had to record MAR's
doubts about the manor's status? Seems like could have just simply
refused.
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... i1Vg&hl=en
One slight factual error in my first posting: MAR's prodigious record
of 502 came in November 2005, not November 2006.
I wonder why that webpage on Stanbury felt they had to record MAR's
doubts about the manor's status? Seems like could have just simply
refused.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I got an email suggesting that the GG stats are updated on the 15th of
the month. If this is the case, then MAR's and mine will jump
phenomenally around that time. And this would also explain why Brad's
March postings are not shown at all--he made all his posts in March
after the 15th.
the month. If this is the case, then MAR's and mine will jump
phenomenally around that time. And this would also explain why Brad's
March postings are not shown at all--he made all his posts in March
after the 15th.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
It seems my March total will be 149, at least:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1175086632
Still, that's nothing like 502.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1175086632
Still, that's nothing like 502.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
Oh, lord, Andrews-Reading's full name is "Michael John Charles,"
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/loc0 ... fault.html
while mine is "John Charles" ...
Now, if only I could find a picture of him somewhere (I'm guessing it
would not compare particularly favorably to any of the others I've
posted here lately). Quite pudgy, I'm speculating.
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/loc0 ... fault.html
while mine is "John Charles" ...
Now, if only I could find a picture of him somewhere (I'm guessing it
would not compare particularly favorably to any of the others I've
posted here lately). Quite pudgy, I'm speculating.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
Now, if only I could find a picture of him somewhere (I'm guessing it
would not compare particularly favorably to any of the others I've
posted here lately). Quite pudgy, I'm speculating.
Or bald? Or bad British teeth?
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
Now, if only I could find a picture of him somewhere (I'm guessing it
would not compare particularly favorably to any of the others I've
posted here lately). Quite pudgy, I'm speculating.
I inserted the word "particularly" after finishing writing the above
and think it changed the meaning slightly from what I had intended. I
had definitely _not_ meant to imply that MAR's appearance would
compare "favorably to the others, but not by all that much" as I think
it could be read. In fact, I do not think it would compare
favorably. Full stop.
Didn't want to lead you on, Michael.
But if you have any internet photos that would rebut that opinion,
we'd be happy for a look-see. Surely there is something promotional
still on the web from the political campaign ...?
I have tried to find some photos of myself, but no luck (I'm really
not very important, apparently). I'm 6'5", usually between 205-215
pounds, blue-ish eyes, dark brown/ black hair (slightly wavy, and
graying at the sides, but no MPB yet), goatee (slightly graying),
glasses, etc.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
Did you really lose to a "Miss Head," Michael? Maybe you should have
adopted her "campaign strategy" ...
adopted her "campaign strategy" ...
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I got an email suggesting that the GG stats are updated on the 15th of
the month. If this is the case, then MAR's and mine will jump
phenomenally around that time. And this would also explain why Brad's
March postings are not shown at all--he made all his posts in March
after the 15th.
This suggestion must not be right, since it's well past the 15th by
now. Are the Google Groups statistics out of commission? I'm guessing
that's the case and that MAR realize this soon after the stats stopped
being compiled ... thought he could sneak in another "November 2005"
without feeling guilty about it. Notice that he started picking on me
in particular soon after the middle of March. He doesn't mind having
another "off-his-rocker" month (500+) postings, he just doesn't want
the stats there to remind him.
It seems he has more in common with some trolls than he may care to
admit.
-
Gjest
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
On 17 Apr., 18:03, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry to "pick on you", but do you have any mediaeval genealogy to
contribute to this group, John?
Regards, Michael
I got an email suggesting that the GG stats are updated on the 15th of
the month. If this is the case, then MAR's and mine will jump
phenomenally around that time. And this would also explain why Brad's
March postings are not shown at all--he made all his posts in March
after the 15th.
This suggestion must not be right, since it's well past the 15th by
now. Are the Google Groups statistics out of commission? I'm guessing
that's the case and that MAR realize this soon after the stats stopped
being compiled ... thought he could sneak in another "November 2005"
without feeling guilty about it. Notice that he started picking on me
in particular soon after the middle of March. He doesn't mind having
another "off-his-rocker" month (500+) postings, he just doesn't want
the stats there to remind him.
It seems he has more in common with some trolls than he may care to
admit.
Sorry to "pick on you", but do you have any mediaeval genealogy to
contribute to this group, John?
Regards, Michael
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I guess he's going to *try* to shape up now that he's been effectively
"busted" ...
"busted" ...
Sorry to "pick on you", but do you have any mediaeval genealogy to
contribute to this group, John?
Regards, Michael
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
There's something strangely flim-flammy about Peter Stewart's earlier
statement ...
In case anyone who doesn't use Google is interested in the current
month's
statistics to date given for SGM, the numbers for the ten most
frequent
posters in March are as follows:
John Brandon 149
Peter Stewart 78
Michael Andrews-Reading 45
Will Johnson 44
Tim Powys-Lybbe 25
Leo van de Pas 18
John Ravilious 15
Paul Bulkley 13
James Cummings 10
Nat Taylor 9
See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1175086632
However, I note that Google Groups Australia shows precisely the same
numbers as our home-grown counter:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... 1bCg&hl=en
So why is Peter Stewart lying for MA_R?
statement ...
In case anyone who doesn't use Google is interested in the current
month's
statistics to date given for SGM, the numbers for the ten most
frequent
posters in March are as follows:
John Brandon 149
Peter Stewart 78
Michael Andrews-Reading 45
Will Johnson 44
Tim Powys-Lybbe 25
Leo van de Pas 18
John Ravilious 15
Paul Bulkley 13
James Cummings 10
Nat Taylor 9
See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1175086632
However, I note that Google Groups Australia shows precisely the same
numbers as our home-grown counter:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... 1bCg&hl=en
So why is Peter Stewart lying for MA_R?
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176829401.002800.85080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If you have a spare (and sane) moment today, you might care to check the
posts from November 2005 at
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2005-11
and count the ones from Michael.
Then you can report back and apologise if you and Google are wrong.
Peter Stewart
news:1176829401.002800.85080@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I got an email suggesting that the GG stats are updated on the 15th of
the month. If this is the case, then MAR's and mine will jump
phenomenally around that time. And this would also explain why Brad's
March postings are not shown at all--he made all his posts in March
after the 15th.
This suggestion must not be right, since it's well past the 15th by
now. Are the Google Groups statistics out of commission? I'm guessing
that's the case and that MAR realize this soon after the stats stopped
being compiled ... thought he could sneak in another "November 2005"
without feeling guilty about it. Notice that he started picking on me
in particular soon after the middle of March. He doesn't mind having
another "off-his-rocker" month (500+) postings, he just doesn't want
the stats there to remind him.
It seems he has more in common with some trolls than he may care to
admit.
If you have a spare (and sane) moment today, you might care to check the
posts from November 2005 at
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2005-11
and count the ones from Michael.
Then you can report back and apologise if you and Google are wrong.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176842574.599941.195720@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
I was not lying, of course.
The figures I gave did not come from individual profiles, where Brandon has
clearly got a dud statistic for himself in March, but from the newsgroup
count at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
as reported on 28 March.
Peter Stewart
news:1176842574.599941.195720@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
There's something strangely flim-flammy about Peter Stewart's earlier
statement ...
In case anyone who doesn't use Google is interested in the current
month's
statistics to date given for SGM, the numbers for the ten most
frequent
posters in March are as follows:
John Brandon 149
Peter Stewart 78
Michael Andrews-Reading 45
Will Johnson 44
Tim Powys-Lybbe 25
Leo van de Pas 18
John Ravilious 15
Paul Bulkley 13
James Cummings 10
Nat Taylor 9
See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1175086632
However, I note that Google Groups Australia shows precisely the same
numbers as our home-grown counter:
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... 1bCg&hl=en
So why is Peter Stewart lying for MA_R?
I was not lying, of course.
The figures I gave did not come from individual profiles, where Brandon has
clearly got a dud statistic for himself in March, but from the newsgroup
count at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
as reported on 28 March.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
If you have a spare (and sane) moment today, you might care to check the
posts from November 2005 at
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2005-11
and count the ones from Michael.
By hand? Who has time to do all that? But apparently the devil
really does find work for idle hands, Peter.
You are forgetting all the other groups he infests anyway.
Then you can report back and apologise if you and Google are wrong.
Not too likely, even if it were the case I was wrong. Though maybe if
you beg a little ...
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
The figures I gave did not come from individual profiles, where Brandon has
clearly got a dud statistic for himself in March, but from the newsgroup
count at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
as reported on 28 March.
Peter Stewart
Thank you. That page *is* convenient.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
On Apr 18, 9:18 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have received a count from someone with far greater computer skills
than my own, with the following results for the four most frequent
posters:-
November 2005:
Will Johnson 414
Michael Andrews-Reading 323
John Brandon 225
Douglas Richardson 199
Their total of 1,161 accounted for 77.25% of the grand total of 1,503
posts in the month.
March 2007:
John Brandon 279
Peter Stewart 166
Michael Andrews-Reading 100
Will Johnson 88
Their total of 756 accounted for 83.73% of the grand total of 756
posts in the month.
A suitable apology to Michael will no doubt be forthcoming after John
Brandon verifies or corrects these figures.
Peter Stewart
The figures I gave did not come from individual profiles, where Brandon has
clearly got a dud statistic for himself in March, but from the newsgroup
count at
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
as reported on 28 March.
Peter Stewart
Thank you. That page *is* convenient.
I have received a count from someone with far greater computer skills
than my own, with the following results for the four most frequent
posters:-
November 2005:
Will Johnson 414
Michael Andrews-Reading 323
John Brandon 225
Douglas Richardson 199
Their total of 1,161 accounted for 77.25% of the grand total of 1,503
posts in the month.
March 2007:
John Brandon 279
Peter Stewart 166
Michael Andrews-Reading 100
Will Johnson 88
Their total of 756 accounted for 83.73% of the grand total of 756
posts in the month.
A suitable apology to Michael will no doubt be forthcoming after John
Brandon verifies or corrects these figures.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
March 2007:
John Brandon 279
Peter Stewart 166
Michael Andrews-Reading 100
Will Johnson 88
If your stats page showed you 149 for me on March 28, how did my total
explode to 279 in just the three remaining days of the month?
A suitable apology to Michael will no doubt be forthcoming after John
Brandon verifies or corrects these figures.
No, John will not be verifying, correcting, nor apologizing for
nuthin.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
On Apr 18, 8:55 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I understand that the count reported to me was done by sorting the
data imported into a spreadsheet, not "by hand".
I am not "forgetting" this as I know nothing about it - SGM is the
only newsgroup I follow, and Michael does not by any means "infest"
this one. Projecting again.
I'm sure that Michael has the good sense to care nothing for whether
or not you apologise, but the refusal and the silly rider to it are as
usual revealing of contrary and vaporous character.
Peter Stewart
If you have a spare (and sane) moment today, you might care to check the
posts from November 2005 at
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2005-11
and count the ones from Michael.
By hand? Who has time to do all that? But apparently the devil
really does find work for idle hands, Peter.
I understand that the count reported to me was done by sorting the
data imported into a spreadsheet, not "by hand".
You are forgetting all the other groups he infests anyway.
I am not "forgetting" this as I know nothing about it - SGM is the
only newsgroup I follow, and Michael does not by any means "infest"
this one. Projecting again.
Then you can report back and apologise if you and Google are wrong.
Not too likely, even if it were the case I was wrong. Though maybe if
you beg a little ...
I'm sure that Michael has the good sense to care nothing for whether
or not you apologise, but the refusal and the silly rider to it are as
usual revealing of contrary and vaporous character.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
On Apr 18, 10:29 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I have already told you that the original statistics came from Google,
and we know that Google group numbers are unreliable as these are
shown to be self-contradicting, although on 28 March the proportions
were close enough.
It doesn't matter, as Brandon has been clearly shown up once again for
posting opportunistic retaliatory nonsense.
Peter Stewart
March 2007:
John Brandon 279
Peter Stewart 166
Michael Andrews-Reading 100
Will Johnson 88
If your stats page showed you 149 for me on March 28, how did my total
explode to 279 in just the three remaining days of the month?
I have already told you that the original statistics came from Google,
and we know that Google group numbers are unreliable as these are
shown to be self-contradicting, although on 28 March the proportions
were close enough.
A suitable apology to Michael will no doubt be forthcoming after John
Brandon verifies or corrects these figures.
No, John will not be verifying, correcting, nor apologizing for
nuthin.
It doesn't matter, as Brandon has been clearly shown up once again for
posting opportunistic retaliatory nonsense.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176855462.357697.152810@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Even my lack of rudimentary skill in arithmetic doesn't usually come out
with such nonsense. I meant to write "Their total of 633 accounted for
83.73% of the grand total of 756 posts in the month".
Peter Stewart
news:1176855462.357697.152810@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
March 2007:
John Brandon 279
Peter Stewart 166
Michael Andrews-Reading 100
Will Johnson 88
Their total of 756 accounted for 83.73% of the grand total of 756
posts in the month.
Even my lack of rudimentary skill in arithmetic doesn't usually come out
with such nonsense. I meant to write "Their total of 633 accounted for
83.73% of the grand total of 756 posts in the month".
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I have already told you that the original statistics came from Google,
and we know that Google group numbers are unreliable as these are
shown to be self-contradicting, although on 28 March the proportions
were close enough.
No, I don't think we "know" any such thing about the Google group
numbers. We haven't seen any instances where they self-contradict.
It's only that the counter has stopped working in the personal
profiles.
It does seem your math skills are very lacking (if indeed you have not
been actively dishonest, something still very questionable in my mind).
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176895619.988273.325190@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You are very free with this absurd smear - trolling and projecting again.
Google has contradicted itself by giving different statistics for individual
posters. That is shown, as I said, not open to self-serving and tedious
argument.
I apologise to Tim and others who have Brandon kill-filed for bringing this
sludge from him to their mailboxes.
Peter Stewart
news:1176895619.988273.325190@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I have already told you that the original statistics came from Google,
and we know that Google group numbers are unreliable as these are
shown to be self-contradicting, although on 28 March the proportions
were close enough.
No, I don't think we "know" any such thing about the Google group
numbers. We haven't seen any instances where they self-contradict.
It's only that the counter has stopped working in the personal
profiles.
It does seem your math skills are very lacking (if indeed you have not
been actively dishonest, something still very questionable in my mind).
You are very free with this absurd smear - trolling and projecting again.
Google has contradicted itself by giving different statistics for individual
posters. That is shown, as I said, not open to self-serving and tedious
argument.
I apologise to Tim and others who have Brandon kill-filed for bringing this
sludge from him to their mailboxes.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
No, I don't think we "know" any such thing about the Google group
numbers. We haven't seen any instances where they self-contradict.
It's only that the counter has stopped working in the personal
profiles.
It does seem your math skills are very lacking (if indeed you have not
been actively dishonest, something still very questionable in my mind).
Okay, here's my count for March 2007.
Manually counting through the Rootsweb Archive for 03-2007, I come up
with 162 by John Brandon:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2007-03
Using Google Groups statistics, I get 154 by John Brandon:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search? ... _maxy=2007
N.B. Notice the line at the top: "Results 1 - 10 of 154 from Mar 1,
2007 to Mar 31, 2007 for author:starbuc...@hotmail.com."
The difference might possibly be explained by a few I removed on GG
manually, specifically the "Peter was a jerk" and "Michael was a
creep" thread (though one of those is still showing in the list for
some reason).
So, by no means did I post 279 (or anywhere near that) in March 2007.
Peter's statistic of 149 on March 28th seems accurate enough. Where
did this bogus 279 come from?
**This is my last posting in this retarded thread. Take it or leave
it.
-
Gjest
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
On Apr 18, 3:37 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where have we heard that kind of promise before?
No, I don't think we "know" any such thing about the Google group
numbers. We haven't seen any instances where they self-contradict.
It's only that the counter has stopped working in the personal
profiles.
It does seem your math skills are very lacking (if indeed you have not
been actively dishonest, something still very questionable in my mind).
Okay, here's my count for March 2007.
Manually counting through the Rootsweb Archive for 03-2007, I come up
with 162 by John Brandon:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/G ... AL/2007-03
Using Google Groups statistics, I get 154 by John Brandon:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search? ... en&enc_a...
N.B. Notice the line at the top: "Results 1 - 10 of 154 from Mar 1,
2007 to Mar 31, 2007 for author:starbuc...@hotmail.com."
The difference might possibly be explained by a few I removed on GG
manually, specifically the "Peter was a jerk" and "Michael was a
creep" thread (though one of those is still showing in the list for
some reason).
So, by no means did I post 279 (or anywhere near that) in March 2007.
Peter's statistic of 149 on March 28th seems accurate enough. Where
did this bogus 279 come from?
**This is my last posting in this retarded thread. Take it or leave
it.
Where have we heard that kind of promise before?
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
Where have we heard that kind of promise before?
(Couldn't resist.
life. "I'm leaving you... 'Bye now."
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
(Couldn't resist.) I'm sure you hear it plenty in your private
life. "I'm leaving you... 'Bye now."
I must not be as smart as all those ones. I keep foolishly coming
back.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
This may actually be my last posting in this retarded thread. Or
maybe not.
But I just wanted to point out the apparent tempering effect on MAR's
posting habits brought about by his realization that a working counter
is still in existence:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
I'm sticking by my theory that MAR noticed the Google Groups counter
was broken on or about March 15, and "went for broke," figuring he
could indulge his trollish side without unpleasant numbers staring him
in the face. But after Peter Stewart pointed out a counter that had
remained functional, MAR had to "tone it back down." Notice that
recently he is careful to stay at about 10 to 15 fewer postings than
yours truly.
Speaking of those who have sometimes had huge monthly numbers of
postings, check out resident charwoman Renia:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... qdqQ&hl=en
I note 459 in December 2004 and 401 the following April. Does this
make her a troll? Not necessarily. I'm guessing more at "bored" and
"idle."
maybe not.
But I just wanted to point out the apparent tempering effect on MAR's
posting habits brought about by his realization that a working counter
is still in existence:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
I'm sticking by my theory that MAR noticed the Google Groups counter
was broken on or about March 15, and "went for broke," figuring he
could indulge his trollish side without unpleasant numbers staring him
in the face. But after Peter Stewart pointed out a counter that had
remained functional, MAR had to "tone it back down." Notice that
recently he is careful to stay at about 10 to 15 fewer postings than
yours truly.
Speaking of those who have sometimes had huge monthly numbers of
postings, check out resident charwoman Renia:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... qdqQ&hl=en
I note 459 in December 2004 and 401 the following April. Does this
make her a troll? Not necessarily. I'm guessing more at "bored" and
"idle."
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I don't suppose for a moment that it will be your last posting in this
thread, but if you can engage what passes for your mind to look at this
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... y.medieval
you will see that according to the Google Groups counter there were 221
posts from Michael to SGM in November 2005. The number 502 that you are so
obsessed with is the aggregate of all his postings to all Google newsgroups
in that month.
There is nothing to substantiate the inane idea that his frequency of
posting has changed due to any count or report from anyone. There is also
nothing wrong with the "tone" of Michael's posts in the first place, unlike
Brandon's.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177425104.571952.235500@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
thread, but if you can engage what passes for your mind to look at this
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... y.medieval
you will see that according to the Google Groups counter there were 221
posts from Michael to SGM in November 2005. The number 502 that you are so
obsessed with is the aggregate of all his postings to all Google newsgroups
in that month.
There is nothing to substantiate the inane idea that his frequency of
posting has changed due to any count or report from anyone. There is also
nothing wrong with the "tone" of Michael's posts in the first place, unlike
Brandon's.
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177425104.571952.235500@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
This may actually be my last posting in this retarded thread. Or
maybe not.
But I just wanted to point out the apparent tempering effect on MAR's
posting habits brought about by his realization that a working counter
is still in existence:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
I'm sticking by my theory that MAR noticed the Google Groups counter
was broken on or about March 15, and "went for broke," figuring he
could indulge his trollish side without unpleasant numbers staring him
in the face. But after Peter Stewart pointed out a counter that had
remained functional, MAR had to "tone it back down." Notice that
recently he is careful to stay at about 10 to 15 fewer postings than
yours truly.
Speaking of those who have sometimes had huge monthly numbers of
postings, check out resident charwoman Renia:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... qdqQ&hl=en
I note 459 in December 2004 and 401 the following April. Does this
make her a troll? Not necessarily. I'm guessing more at "bored" and
"idle."
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I don't suppose for a moment that it will be your last posting in this
thread, but if you can engage what passes for your mind to look at this
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... y.medieval
you will see that according to the Google Groups counter there were 221
posts from Michael to SGM in November 2005. The number 502 that you are so
obsessed with is the aggregate of all his postings to all Google newsgroups
in that month.
There is nothing to substantiate the inane idea that his frequency of
posting has changed due to any count or report from anyone. There is also
nothing wrong with the "tone" of Michael's posts in the first place, unlike
Brandon's.
Peter Stewart
I never said all 502 were in s.g.m., merely that there were 502 in a
single month, and that that level of activity suggests a bit of
instability in the mind. Was he doing all or some of this on the
job? Is he so high up in "vice and fraud" at Price Outerhouse Coopers
that he only supervises (and that ratherly laxly)? My greatest record
of activity was 235 in a month (sometime last year), and during that
time I was conducting a little experiment: posting gibberish to other
groups in response to cross-posted threads set up by DSH (I don't know
if this worked ... probably not).
The tone of Michael's posts is sometimes very objectionable in my
opinion--condescending, scolding, etc. I may be rude at times, but I
don't usually continuously scold in such a self-righteous way.
-
Renia
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
John Brandon wrote:
You don't? What's this then?
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
and this:
And that's just in the past week. (Bottom is the earliest. Top is the
latest.)
The tone of Michael's posts is sometimes very objectionable in my
opinion--condescending, scolding, etc. I may be rude at times, but I
don't usually continuously scold in such a self-righteous way.
You don't? What's this then?
Speaking of those who have sometimes had huge monthly numbers of
postings, check out resident charwoman Renia:
and this:
Now this is more Reny's level -- grading a child's essay on Eliz. I.
and this:
Witch. (But I can upgrade you a little to "byotch," if you like.)
That was harsh. Maybe I'll just go back to "charwoman" ... which
seemed to offend you the most.
Cheerio, Reny.
and this:
Yes, it was a little harsh. Renia is not _precisely_ an "almost
worthless hag"; she has done look-ups for people and posted info from
CP. But you wouldn't say she has very original ideas about genealogy,
or even follows along with much interest when the going gets rough. I
remember her more for fighting with DHS and doing her best impression
of a British charwoman, bustling about uttering "cheerios" and talking
of needing a "cuppa." She reminded me a lot of Cath, our floor
cleaner in the Rootes Residences at Warwick in 1988-89.
and this:
Actually, Renia is an almost worthless hag with little to offer as far
as genealogy is concerned.
and this:
I'm not about to take the blame for a lurker (Renia) [actually a
"claimed" lurker--how can we verify she was here if she never posts
anything? (as she hasn't for many years)] becoming fed up with the
newsgroup.
and this:
Go Reny! Post something substantial with your bad self.
and this:
What sheer bull. You stopped posting here long before becoming aware
of me. Not that you ever posted a single thing of substance, anyway.
We need Spencer back to toy with you and tell you off as only he
could ...
and this:
The same way yo' mama helped yo' daddy. Now, do stop being a pest.
and this:
Go back to your knitting and knick-knack collecting, Renia.
And that's just in the past week. (Bottom is the earliest. Top is the
latest.)
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
In message of 25 Apr, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
<snip of ten examples of the hypocrite's self righteous scolding in the
last week>
All I can say is that I'm glad that the chap is on my kill file, even if
I do have to stomach him second-hand on occasion.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
John Brandon wrote:
The tone of Michael's posts is sometimes very objectionable in my
opinion--condescending, scolding, etc. I may be rude at times, but I
don't usually continuously scold in such a self-righteous way.
<snip of ten examples of the hypocrite's self righteous scolding in the
last week>
And that's just in the past week. (Bottom is the earliest. Top is the
latest.)
All I can say is that I'm glad that the chap is on my kill file, even if
I do have to stomach him second-hand on occasion.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
So you are harping endlessly to SGM readers about the number of Michael's
posts in one particular month to all other newsgroups as well as this one,
and reporting your own stupid & ineffectual "experiment" in gibberish, while
accusing him of mental instability....
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177510504.727705.244730@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
posts in one particular month to all other newsgroups as well as this one,
and reporting your own stupid & ineffectual "experiment" in gibberish, while
accusing him of mental instability....
Peter Stewart
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177510504.727705.244730@t38g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I don't suppose for a moment that it will be your last posting in this
thread, but if you can engage what passes for your mind to look at this
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/prof ... y.medieval
you will see that according to the Google Groups counter there were 221
posts from Michael to SGM in November 2005. The number 502 that you are so
obsessed with is the aggregate of all his postings to all Google
newsgroups
in that month.
There is nothing to substantiate the inane idea that his frequency of
posting has changed due to any count or report from anyone. There is also
nothing wrong with the "tone" of Michael's posts in the first place,
unlike
Brandon's.
Peter Stewart
I never said all 502 were in s.g.m., merely that there were 502 in a
single month, and that that level of activity suggests a bit of
instability in the mind. Was he doing all or some of this on the
job? Is he so high up in "vice and fraud" at Price Outerhouse Coopers
that he only supervises (and that ratherly laxly)? My greatest record
of activity was 235 in a month (sometime last year), and during that
time I was conducting a little experiment: posting gibberish to other
groups in response to cross-posted threads set up by DSH (I don't know
if this worked ... probably not).
The tone of Michael's posts is sometimes very objectionable in my
opinion--condescending, scolding, etc. I may be rude at times, but I
don't usually continuously scold in such a self-righteous way.
-
Gjest
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
On 24 Apr., 15:31, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We have learned that your word means nothing.
Rubbish, as usual. Unlike you, I post when I have something relevant
and worthwhile to say, and time to say it - simple as that. You would
do well to adopt a similar approach.
Rubbish. You are the only obsessive who counts posts here. I do not
know whether I posted 10 or 1000 times in any particular month of
2005; I do not know whether the "Google Groups Counter" figures are
accurate (although I suspect not). What's more, I do not care. I am
happy to be judged on the content of my posts, not their volume.
Do you have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute for once?
MA-R
This may actually be my last posting in this retarded thread. Or
maybe not.
We have learned that your word means nothing.
But I just wanted to point out the apparent tempering effect on MAR's
posting habits brought about by his realization that a working counter
is still in existence:
Rubbish, as usual. Unlike you, I post when I have something relevant
and worthwhile to say, and time to say it - simple as that. You would
do well to adopt a similar approach.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.g ... bout?hl=en
I'm sticking by my theory that MAR noticed the Google Groups counter
was broken on or about March 15, and "went for broke," figuring he
could indulge his trollish side without unpleasant numbers staring him
in the face. But after Peter Stewart pointed out a counter that had
remained functional, MAR had to "tone it back down." Notice that
recently he is careful to stay at about 10 to 15 fewer postings than
yours truly.
Rubbish. You are the only obsessive who counts posts here. I do not
know whether I posted 10 or 1000 times in any particular month of
2005; I do not know whether the "Google Groups Counter" figures are
accurate (although I suspect not). What's more, I do not care. I am
happy to be judged on the content of my posts, not their volume.
Do you have any mediaeval genealogy to contribute for once?
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1177567656.883820.201440@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Then we would never hear from him at all.
On recent showing from SGM's two resident noisemeisters, it may be that
Douglas Richardson's missing spanner has got into Brandon's mental works.
Peter Stewart
news:1177567656.883820.201440@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 24 Apr., 15:31, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This may actually be my last posting in this retarded thread. Or
maybe not.
We have learned that your word means nothing.
But I just wanted to point out the apparent tempering effect on MAR's
posting habits brought about by his realization that a working counter
is still in existence:
Rubbish, as usual. Unlike you, I post when I have something relevant
and worthwhile to say, and time to say it - simple as that. You would
do well to adopt a similar approach.
Then we would never hear from him at all.
On recent showing from SGM's two resident noisemeisters, it may be that
Douglas Richardson's missing spanner has got into Brandon's mental works.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
The tone of Michael's posts is sometimes very objectionable in my
opinion--condescending, scolding, etc. I may be rude at times, but I
don't usually continuously scold in such a self-righteous way.
You don't? What's this then?
Speaking of those who have sometimes had huge monthly numbers of
postings, check out resident charwoman Renia:
and this:
Now this is more Reny's level -- grading a child's essay on Eliz. I.
and this:
Witch. (But I can upgrade you a little to "byotch," if you like.)
That was harsh. Maybe I'll just go back to "charwoman" ... which
seemed to offend you the most.
Cheerio, Reny.
and this:
Yes, it was a little harsh. Renia is not _precisely_ an "almost
worthless hag"; she has done look-ups for people and posted info from
CP. But you wouldn't say she has very original ideas about genealogy,
or even follows along with much interest when the going gets rough. I
remember her more for fighting with DHS and doing her best impression
of a British charwoman, bustling about uttering "cheerios" and talking
of needing a "cuppa." She reminded me a lot of Cath, our floor
cleaner in the Rootes Residences at Warwick in 1988-89.
and this:
Actually, Renia is an almost worthless hag with little to offer as far
as genealogy is concerned.
and this:
I'm not about to take the blame for a lurker (Renia) [actually a
"claimed" lurker--how can we verify she was here if she never posts
anything? (as she hasn't for many years)] becoming fed up with the
newsgroup.
and this:
Go Reny! Post something substantial with your bad self.
and this:
What sheer bull. You stopped posting here long before becoming aware
of me. Not that you ever posted a single thing of substance, anyway.
We need Spencer back to toy with you and tell you off as only he
could ...
and this:
The same way yo' mama helped yo' daddy. Now, do stop being a pest.
and this:
Go back to your knitting and knick-knack collecting, Renia.
And that's just in the past week. (Bottom is the earliest. Top is the
latest.)
Yes, those are rude ... somewhat rude, but mostly silly. But they
aren't self-righteous scolding ("you're not posting on topic;" "you
can do so much better when you make the effort;" "that kind of
gratuitous remark is unworthy of you: you don't need to diminish the
work of others in order to make your own contributions appear
valuable," and on and on.) In other words, I don't give a rat's a.
what people post as long as they leave me alone.
-
Renia
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
John Brandon wrote:
I don't think anyone gives a rat's arse what you post, either. Most have
killfiled you. The others ignore you. I'll go back to ignoring you.
The tone of Michael's posts is sometimes very objectionable in my
opinion--condescending, scolding, etc. I may be rude at times, but I
don't usually continuously scold in such a self-righteous way.
You don't? What's this then?
Speaking of those who have sometimes had huge monthly numbers of
postings, check out resident charwoman Renia:
and this:
Now this is more Reny's level -- grading a child's essay on Eliz. I.
and this:
Witch. (But I can upgrade you a little to "byotch," if you like.)
That was harsh. Maybe I'll just go back to "charwoman" ... which
seemed to offend you the most.
Cheerio, Reny.
and this:
Yes, it was a little harsh. Renia is not _precisely_ an "almost
worthless hag"; she has done look-ups for people and posted info from
CP. But you wouldn't say she has very original ideas about genealogy,
or even follows along with much interest when the going gets rough. I
remember her more for fighting with DHS and doing her best impression
of a British charwoman, bustling about uttering "cheerios" and talking
of needing a "cuppa." She reminded me a lot of Cath, our floor
cleaner in the Rootes Residences at Warwick in 1988-89.
and this:
Actually, Renia is an almost worthless hag with little to offer as far
as genealogy is concerned.
and this:
I'm not about to take the blame for a lurker (Renia) [actually a
"claimed" lurker--how can we verify she was here if she never posts
anything? (as she hasn't for many years)] becoming fed up with the
newsgroup.
and this:
Go Reny! Post something substantial with your bad self.
and this:
What sheer bull. You stopped posting here long before becoming aware
of me. Not that you ever posted a single thing of substance, anyway.
We need Spencer back to toy with you and tell you off as only he
could ...
and this:
The same way yo' mama helped yo' daddy. Now, do stop being a pest.
and this:
Go back to your knitting and knick-knack collecting, Renia.
And that's just in the past week. (Bottom is the earliest. Top is the
latest.)
Yes, those are rude ... somewhat rude, but mostly silly. But they
aren't self-righteous scolding ("you're not posting on topic;" "you
can do so much better when you make the effort;" "that kind of
gratuitous remark is unworthy of you: you don't need to diminish the
work of others in order to make your own contributions appear
valuable," and on and on.) In other words, I don't give a rat's a.
what people post as long as they leave me alone.
I don't think anyone gives a rat's arse what you post, either. Most have
killfiled you. The others ignore you. I'll go back to ignoring you.
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
I don't think anyone gives a rat's arse what you post, either. Most have
killfiled you. The others ignore you. I'll go back to ignoring you.
I pray to Jesus this is true.
-
Gjest
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
By hand? Who has time to do all that? But apparently the devil
really does find work for idle hands, Peter.
You are forgetting all the other groups he infests anyway.
Then you can report back and apologise if you and Google are wrong.
Not too likely, even if it were the case I was wrong. Though maybe if
you beg a little ...
-----------------------------------------------------
am I missing something here?, can someone clarify this for me...is Peter
Stewart saying that he would not admit it if he were wrong, or is it
John Brandon?
pip
-
John Brandon
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
It was J.B., but never mind. Don't stir this up again.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Quirks of Google groups statistics
<PIPPHILLIPS18@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:1177692470.255351.80530@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
You are apparently missing the capacity to count in single digits - the
chevrons in your post indicated that the person who would not admit to being
wrong had addressed me by name above. I am not in the habit of speaking to m
yself.
Rather than scratching around in vain for pop-gun ammunition, you would do
better to admit your own flat lie to the newsgroup about Pigna's genealogy
of the Estensi. You were caught out in this, with incontovertible proof from
the book itself, and trying to deflect censure will do you no good
whatsoever. Most reprobates would go away and hide their shame after such a
disgrace, not stick around trying to shoot the messenger with damp squibs.
Peter Stewart
news:1177692470.255351.80530@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
By hand? Who has time to do all that? But apparently the devil
really does find work for idle hands, Peter.
You are forgetting all the other groups he infests anyway.
Then you can report back and apologise if you and Google are wrong.
Not too likely, even if it were the case I was wrong. Though maybe if
you beg a little ...
-----------------------------------------------------
am I missing something here?, can someone clarify this for me...is Peter
Stewart saying that he would not admit it if he were wrong, or is it
John Brandon?
You are apparently missing the capacity to count in single digits - the
chevrons in your post indicated that the person who would not admit to being
wrong had addressed me by name above. I am not in the habit of speaking to m
yself.
Rather than scratching around in vain for pop-gun ammunition, you would do
better to admit your own flat lie to the newsgroup about Pigna's genealogy
of the Estensi. You were caught out in this, with incontovertible proof from
the book itself, and trying to deflect censure will do you no good
whatsoever. Most reprobates would go away and hide their shame after such a
disgrace, not stick around trying to shoot the messenger with damp squibs.
Peter Stewart