Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

Frank Hamersley wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >> Marshall wrote:
> >>> I remain deeply ambivalent about Bob's use of insults.
> >> So impressed I am not - he is just loud _and_ gutless. Therefore FWIW
> >> be careful of being tarred as a sycophant!
> >
> > So now you're implying I'm a sycophant? Do you know what "deeply
> > ambivalent" means?
>
> Yep - yet you still professed admiration in the final analysis.

I said I was impressed with his "command of terminology," and expressed "deep ambivalence" about his style of communication. I did not express any overall opinion. So, no.

> > This is bizarre, the recent spate of people insulting me as a
> > Bob-puppet.
>
> Not intended as in insult - just a clinical call.

Oh, I see: you meant the *flattering* sense of "sycophant."

> > I wonder who, over the years, has been the most vocal and
> > persistant critic of Bob's style of diction. Because I rather think
> > it's me.
>
> Perhaps - I can't judge the veracity of that statement.

If you can't tell one way or the other, you're not in much of a position to be making a "clinical call."

> Just because he "makes the call" on a few cranks more quickly than most
> of us, you should simply recognise it as "shoot first policy". This
> does not make him a hero - rather just as Clint put it "a legend".

I view it in an information-theoretic sense: if his crank-detection gain
is turned up, as it were, relative to me, then he'll have more correct identifications and more false positives, and I'll have more correct rejections and more false negatives. This does not address the issue of which of us is more accurate, nor does it rule out the possibility that I'll have a correct identification while Bob will have a false negative. (This actually happened recently.)

Marshall Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 09:21:43 CEST