Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>>> Just google the name.
>>
>>> Is the name always found in the OP of many controversial / popular
>>> threads?
>>
>>> This indicates an active mind.
>>
>> Or a confused and simple mind, limited by obstinance.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.*
>
>> 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.
>
> On the other hand the less crossposting the more stagnant the group.
> There are a half dozen (including sock puppets) on
> sci.electronics.basics who are in pretend land.
>
> The media have deliberately dumbed down Americans on freedom of speech
> by hyping naked nazi flagburner parade pseudo speech issues. Read
> "The Freedom of the Press" in _Democracy In America_ and you'll
> understand censorship is not the solution.
> Providing the right stats on posters is the solution.
Nope, not when the content is ignored.
> In any event everyone can agree that there is no argument
> against Google compiling and publishing the stats.
Mindlessly silly. There isnt any point in compiling useless stats.
