>>> Is the name always found in the OP of many controversial / popular
>>> threads? This indicates an active mind.

>>
>> Nope,

>
> If no one started any threads, you wouldn't be able to type,

>>>> Of course, your idea of "intelligent participation" and
>>>> "flaming" might be quite different from mine, or someone else. ?I
>>>> don't think there's any real formula here.

>

>>> There may be an issue as to what is on topic for a group but the OP
>>> and end of branch posting profile are purely objective.

>

>> I'm curious.

>
> That's only because you don't know me. If you had the stats on me you
> would either go to other threads ("this Cahill loser does nothing but
> flame out at the ends of branches and everyone knows it") or if you
> _did_ post to my threads you'ld spend less time flaming and more time
> making a contribution to the debate.

>> Trying something over and over that doesn't work is the definition of insanity.

>
> Nope.

> Because the other groups have fuck all participating in them.

>

>> If there is no other group for their "issue" then why don't they start one?

>
> Because hardly anyone will even notice that they have done that.
>
> And hordes of very narrowly focussed groups works very badly indeed.

>> American big brother at work.

>
> The info is already public.  It just isn't easy to compile unless you
> have the time or money to track a poster.  This levels the playing
> field for everyone.
>
> Google already does this for some stats, raw posting activity.
>
> If you post here it means you tacitly support the spread of
> information.
>
> Bret Cahill

>>> American big brother at work.

>

>> The info is already public.  It just isn't easy to compile unless you
>> have the time or money to track a poster.  This levels the playing
>> field for everyone.

>

>> Google already does this for some stats, raw posting activity.

>

>> If you post here it means you tacitly support the spread of
>> information.

>

>> Bret Cahill

>
> Levels of playing field? Like a casino? Should I call myself
> 30 dollar casino warrior?

>>> American big brother at work.

>

>> The info is already public.  It just isn't easy to compile unless you
>> have the time or money to track a poster.  This levels the playing
>> field for everyone.

>

>> Google already does this for some stats, raw posting activity.

>

>> If you post here it means you tacitly support the spread of
>> information.

>

>> Bret Cahill

>
> Levels of playing field? Like a casino? Should I call myself
> 30 dollar casino warrior?

> I think the easiest way to identify someone posing as qualified is to
> check the number of crossposted groups. The more groups the more
> confusion; the metric simply never fails.

>> I think the easiest way to identify someone posing as qualified is to
>> check the number of crossposted groups. The more groups the more
>> confusion; the metric simply never fails.

>
> As qualified for casino. No 30 dollar casino warriors. There is a
> level
> of playing field for 1000 dollar reqirements. I figure you people out
> how
> you think. There is a metric. You people are in a casino.

> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Trying something over and over that doesn't work is the definition of insanity.

>> Nope.

> Now here you have some credibility.

> What is the correct definition?

>>>>> Even more, anyone who is posting to a tech group but
>>>>> isn't really interested in technology is irrational *per se.*

>>>> Wrong again. Some arent interested in the tech but are interested in discussing other things

>>> Then why aren't they discussing those "other things" on other groups?

>> Because the other groups have fuck all participating in them.

> Could that be lack of interest?

>>> If there is no other group for their "issue" then why don't they start one?

> BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

>>> Of course, your idea of "intelligent participation" and
>>> "flaming" might be quite different from mine, or someone
>>> else. ?I don't think there's any real formula here.

>> There may be an issue as to what is on topic for a group but
>> the OP and end of branch posting profile are purely objective.

> I'm curious.

> This is the first indication I've seen that you have
> any awareness of appropriate behavior on usenet.

> Are you saying that you are aware and understand that
> different newsgroups exist to discuss different topic and
> that crossposting is rude and unwanted?

>> Google could easily provide baseball style stats for each poster,

>> 1. The number of OPs.

>> 2. The number of OPs/response postings.