Reef Fish wrote:
It was a year I had decided to spend most of my time
in the recreational newsgroup of rec.travel.cruises
(because of the extensive number of cruises I've done
in the past few years -- 24 since 2003) and the
sci.stat.* newsgroups because of my new-found interest
in my statistical life in 2005, having quit COLD-
TURKEY (or cold-Tukey) out of my disgust of the sad
states of affairs in statistical education promoted
by the administrators of "Higher Education" who "sold
their souls to the Devil" <see threads with those
keywords in sci.stat.math> by compromising standards
to the unbearably low level (and awarded those who
indiscrimantely gave inflated grades to students
to appease them).
I soon found myself spending much more of my time in
the sci.stat groups correcting ERRORS, Quackery, and
malpractice by a few statistical charletans (Richard
Ulrich, Greg Heath, Bob O'Hara, m00es, and the Afonsos,
to name only a few) who were shameless promoting
their statistical Quackery while posting dozens and dozens
of NOISE posts to excuse themselves.
Things seemed to have improved when SUDDENLY all
the NOISE makers went quiet in early November when
beliavsky thought he would attract a whole world of
complainers of NOISE to the new Google group he formed,
which he plagiarised by the name scistatmath, with my
blessing that he'll NEVER find me in that group!
That group turned out to be a spectacular FAILURE.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.stat.math/msg/df27b5aa77c46208
Editorial: Guiness World Record for the shortest
lived moderated group, "scistatmath"?
The group lasted 9 days (Nov 1-9) effectively, of
vacuous statistical content beyond the high school
level. (2/3 of all posts in one thread about Type I error).
Meanwhile, the other three groups flourished, given
the sudden absence of the customary NOISE by the
Afonsos and several other well-known noise-makers.
I found myself to be the Top Poster in all three groups
by a factor of about 3 over the 2nd most frequent
poster in each of the 3 groups in November.
This month's top posters (Nov sci.stat.math)
top 184 "Reef Fish"
This month's top posters (Nov sci.stat.consult)
top 38 Reef Fish
This month's top posters (Nov sci.stat.edu)
top 28 Reef Fish
But then, while the amount of SIGNAL increased
substantially in the new subscribers to the three
groups in December, the old NOISE MAKERS also
returned, to end the year 2006 with these frequent
posters:
This month's top posters (Dec sci.stat.math)
254 "Reef Fish"
119
licas_@hotmail.com
43 Greg Heath
35
jtom...@ix.netcom.com
34
bob.oh...@helsinki.fi
32 Old Mac User
Greg Heath and Bob O'Hara were the secondary
noise makers, next to the 119 posts by Luis A. Afonso,
while Jack Tomsky and Old Mac User were busy
telling Afonso what he had been doing wrong in the
past 6 months -- to no avail.
It's perfect setting for "It's deja vu all over again". :-)
Greg Heath's and Ulrich's Quackery and NOISE
spread to the other two groups.
This month's top posters (Dec sci.stat.consult)
80 Reef Fish
27 Greg Heath
This month's top posters (Dec sci.stat.edu)
86 Reef Fish
25
h...@alumni.brown.edu <== Greg Heath
14
rich.ulr...@comcast.net
Greg and Richard Ulrich and David Winsemius
were making so much OLD NOISE that I finally
posted several "Announcements" that those
posters had earned their "Disqualification
Status" for:
o Your FREE lesson days are over.
o You LOST your PRIVILEGE to question and expect
a response
o Your HISTORY of past behavior of frequent
frivolous nitpick disqualified you from a
reply from Reef Fish Bob
so that I don't have to go through lengthy thread such
as those ridiculous one about "the MODE is not an
average". ;-)
By then, it had become apparent that the readership
of the sci.stat groups had "hit the wall" of their
learning curve --
RF> (established by the learning capacity of the
RF> readership) of what I can teach the readership
RF> in these newsgroups in Topics in Applied Statistics
RF> -- about the Upper Undergraduate level at a
RF> reasonably rated university.
It reached a point of diminishing return with very
few worthwhile new topics to discuss while the Old
Gang is repeating the same old errors and ARGUING
about them.
The saddest point of 2006 (for me) was having to put
Jerry Dallal on the Disqualification Status list,
because he had ceased to contribute anything to the
group while he continued to argue over his own (few)
ERRORS. Up to then, he was always a welcome
discussant.
But when he sank to the depth of Richard Ulrich and
Luis Afonso arguing over his own single ERROR of not
using the correct test statistic for Z in testing
Ho: p1 = p2, and then compound it by re-opening his
previous error on the definition of p-value (without
knowing the Alternative Hypothesis), and without
reading the posts which I had already ANSWERED
his nitpick, it was just too painful to bear to see an
otherwise competent statistician sank to such abysmal
depth of siding with Luis Afonso and Richard Ulrich
(granted they were the ones who dragged him down
into their gutters)!
That came to almost the perfect time for me to start
another New Life (of which the stat. newsgroups was
variously counted as the 11th or the 12th of my many
Lives) as I have already left PLENTY of what I have
to say in the Google Archives (amidst the NOISE from
the Quacks and noise makers).
All anyone in the future wants to read what I have to
say about ANY statistical topic (or keyword) is simply
go to the "Advanced groups search" and specify the
"keywords" for the search and "Reef Fish" as the
author -- and it'll be ALL there, including all the
debunked Quackeries by the well-known Quacks of
these groups.
My thanks for many discussants whom I have
encountered in these groups who had worthwhile
contributions to make (even if I disagreed with some
or much of it), Herman Rubin is one such; Old Mac
User, Jack Tomsky, Kevin Thorpe, Jerry Dallal, Bruce
Weaver, and too many others to name for their less
than frequent entries into the topics of discussions.
I thank Spyrian for his fair perception of what I do
in these groups and rose to the occasion when I was
savagely and unfairly attacked by those who wanted
to "vote reef fish out", because I pointed out statistical
errors by the Quacks!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.stat.math/msg/11c9be19617884cb
NO! I "rejoined" the sci.stat groups in November last year
(trying to revive my comatose statistical "skills" off life support).
At first I wondered "who the hell is this troll?" But since then
I have concluded that there a few people here whose
statistical knowledge & experience I respect more than
Professor (retired) Robert "Reef Fish" Ling.
I, for one, support Reef Fish. When his posts aren't
informative they are at least highly entertaining. I wish
him a long future on usenet. I'll never call him my friend
but I may call him my teacher.
With a fair-minded students like that, who needs a friend? ;^)
And the highlight of my TWO YEARS in these groups is what
I learned from DZ, whose immortal post of something I thought
I wrote myself, only to find out that some very respectable and
world-renown statistician had SAID and DONE what I am
trying to do, long before I was doing it in these groups!!
DZ> (no, it's not Reef Fish 2005 on sci.stat.math, and yes I took
DZ> liberty to capitalize a few random words :-)
"As I grow older I feel more and more need not only for the censores
morum, but for censores scientiarum, a species of watch dogs of
science, whose duty it shall be not only to insist upon HONESTY and
LOGIC in scientific procedure, but who shall warn the public against
appearances of knowledge where we are as yet in a state of
ignorance. In this age of self-advertisement, when an individual may
become famous in twenty four hours by aid of the illustarated daily
press, there is QUACKERY in science as there is quackery in
medicine. And even where there is no quackery there is IGNORANCE and
DOGMA parading before the public as knowledge, and taking its TOLL
from the community by a multiplicity of devices. In many ways the
trained scientific man can WARN the public, even when it lacks
acquaintance with specialized detail... Unfortunately at the present
time no theory of what we may term scientific logic is taught to
students of science in our universities, and the result is only too
patent in 50% and more of so-called scientific publications."
In my follow-up post to DZ's, I wrote,
RF> I wish I could have said it half as eloquently as this author did.
I didn't realize I was in such good company of Karl and Egon Pearson,
and that I have been preaching in sci.stat.*, and playing the same
Watch Dog role as they did. I pointed out the "scientific quackery"
committed REGULARLY by some of the prolific posters in
the sci.stat.* newsgroups, Richard Ulrich to name but one.
Pearson> there is QUACKERY in science as there is quackery in
Pearson> medicine. And EVEN where there is no quackery there
Pearson> is IGNORANCE and DOGMA parading before the public
Pearson> as knowledge
It had been a lively two years, of small steps of progress.
I conclude this sci.stat 2006 Review with what I said in the
2007 Outlook post shortly after the New Year Ball fell:
RF> The incidence of statistical Quackery has certainly diminished in
RF> these groups. I hope to see the trend continue and others to
take
RF> up where I leave off in being the Watch Dog of Statistical
Quackery,
RF> a tradition I am proud to be a part of, since Karl Pearson
declared
RF> it 70 years ago.
RF> Wish you a Happy and Better New 2007
-- Reef Fish Bob.
It sounds like you're planning to wind things up in the sci.stat.*
groups which is a shame as I think you continue to be one of our most
important contributors. As you know, I am also of the firm opinion
that you could have made a *more effective* contribution had you chosen
to use honey to catch your flies instead of vinegar. But we won't go
into that again.
