"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Michael McKelvy wrote:
Just did a search looking for posts to RAO where Arny mentions
Bruce
and
where Bruce mentions Arny.

The results:

Posts where Arny is the author and the words Bruce J. Richman are
in
the
text: 270

Posts where Bruce J. Richman is the author and Arny Krueger is
mentioned in
the text: 1,010.

Another search for posts where Bruce J. Richman is the author and
the
words
liar, hate monger, sociopath, or delusional appear: 609

Other searches:

Number of posts where George Middius is the author: 47,700.

Number of posts where Arny Krueger is the author: 37,900.

Number of posts where I am the author under the 3 user id's I have
had:
6,699.

What you have above is what more knowledgable people than McKelvy
call
"data dredging" or "how to lie with statistics".

To begin with, Krueger, as part of his usual attempts to ridicule and
belittle people, generally refers to people he dislikes only by their
last name. Theefore, McKelvy's phony attempt to compare Krueger's
use
of the words "Bruce J. Richman" with any other variable is
fraudulent.
Krueger generally refers to me as "Richman", not "Bruce J. Richman",
so
any word search using "Bruce J. Richman" is deliberately designed to
present misleading statistics.

McKelvy's "Google searches" are obviously skewed to promote his
agenda.
No scientific observer would draw any conclusions from them other
than
that they involve cherry picking and a transparent attempt to once
again smear one of his many opponents.

And obviously, people who post more often than McKelvy, will use just
about *any* word more often then he does. It is interesting to note
that he deliberately avoids doing data searches about the use of
terms
such as "delusional" and "conspiracy" by Krueger. We all know why.
He
wouldn't like results obtained form using Google searches on a
frequent poster like Krueger.
As usual, meaningless data from McKelvy.

In addition to the points raised above, I neglected to mention one
other very important reason why McKelvy's statistics are almost
worthless - especially when it comes to "word counts". As almost
everybody knows, posts often contain quotations from *previous* posts
in which certain words have been used. Therefore, frequency counts also
reflect the "repetition" words NOT BY THE AUTHOR BUT ONLY FROM A
PREVIOUS POST THAT IS INCLUDED. Google has no way of separating out
this variable. Once again, it's just another example of "How To Lie
With Statistics" - a practice that McKelvy has demonstrated he
endorses.

Keep dancing, you look more foolish every time.