>> Just google the name.
>> Is the name always found in the OP of many controversial / popular
>> threads?
>> This indicates an active mind.
>> Or is the name always flaming out at the ends of branchs?
>> If the poster isn't really interested in technology, or fancies it as
>> something other than what it really is, then he'll always wind up
>> saying something stupid and, after it's pointed out how stupid it was,
>> he'll flame out at the end of a branch.
>> Even more, anyone who is posting to a tech group but isn't really
>> interested in technology is irrational *per se.*
>> Do not be surprised if they try to refute the public record as well.
> There are scientists and engineers who can hardly write a coherent
> sentence on the Internet, Bret. �
You are basing your opinions on real scientists on one bad experience
with a professional economist. Professional economists are not only
not scientists or engineers, they are often the biggest frauds and on
earth.
Why do you think I always garner dozens of hits for my "$200 for a
Shill Tank Answer" post every time I launch it?
. . .
> Mathematics is their speciality, not language or psychology.
> The best way to tell is if they regularly participate intelligently in
> mathematics, science and engineering groups. �
Do they fit the profile above?
If so then they have nothing to contribute, no knowledge or IP.
> Effectively, if they can
> do this, they must have at least some background and facility in these
> areas. �
They are as useless as Al Gore in a dust devil if they fit the
profile.
> 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.
Google could easily provide baseball style stats for each poster,
1. The number of OPs.
2. The number of OPs/response postings.
3. The number of responses/OP.
4. The average number of different posters/OP.
5. The above stats over time, a graph to show improvement.
Someone suggest the above to Google.
Bret Cahill
