Hurricane Season 2004--please read

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
om...

burden of proof required is more than 50/50.

Let's put it in terms you can understand. Statistically, what are the
chances that there are two William Boyds posting to the same newsgroups
from
the cowboy.net ISP?

Read my preceding paragraph again, especially (1). As for (2) folks

Again, what are the chances that there are two such William Boyds?
Assuming, rightly, that the odds are much less than 50/50, I have easily
satisfied your burden of proof requirement. Also, I'd remind you that this
is not a court of law, but a court of Usenet.

use
others' email addresses to post quite often -- as kids use dad's; wife
use
hubby's, or vice versa; friends use friend's; ad nauseum.
Statistically,
the chances that the two William Boyds posting under

and are NOT the same person is much higher than YOU
think.

So you think William's wife is also named William? Or that William Boyd has
friends named William Boyd? Which is statistically more ridiculous?

In any event, the burden of proof lies with YOU to proof that your
is unequivocally the same poster
.

I thought you said 50/50? Now you say "unequivocally" which is even greater
than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. You only wish it were so.
Naw, I've easily satisfied the 50/50 requirement. The burden now lies with
you to prove that one William Boyd is not the same as the other William
Boyd. Go to it.

Now you're sending Judge Wapner and Judge Judy LAUGHING in duet,
because
you haven't successfully argued that the PERSONS posting under
and william.cowboy.net are one and the same
person.

Of course I have. And the jury agrees with me.

Ah, statistically what do YOU think that any reader of this post is as
confused by those two typos as you claim to be? Which only proves the
adage that in newsgroups, when someone fails in SUBSTANCE in an
argument,
especially in a nitpicking argument, they always resort to picking on
typos, grammar, sentence structure, etc., etc., when the latter didn't
matter in their understanding of what was meant.

So you admit that your failed in SUBSTANCE in your argument that William
Boyd was not the same William Boyd but niticking on a typo? I re-rest my
case.

That I gladly concede. Congratulations on your spell-checker. :-)
The checker couldn't tell "coyboy" was a typo for "cowboy", though.

I don't use a spell-checker just as I don't pull out a calculator each and
every time I do simple arithmetic like figuring the tip on a dinner bill.
It helps keep the mind strong into old age, something I believe would have
helped you out a bit.

Greg Mossman wrote:
Again, what are the chances that there are two such William Boyds?
Assuming, rightly, that the odds are much less than 50/50, I have easily
satisfied your burden of proof requirement. Also, I'd remind you that this
is not a court of law, but a court of Usenet.

If we were talking about a cowboy named Hillary, you might have a stronger
case. But this is an ISP, and few first names are more common than William.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
...

You made that offer only because you know I don't drink and don't go to
crummy joints/places. Pretty good odds on you not having to buy. :-)

Darn, I just shelled out $5 for drink insurance in case you decided to show.

I made you several offers for drinks at the LAX Hilton, the smok town
in which you live. I could have offered you a drink at the Time Square
Hilton in Manhattan where I posted the above, or the San Francisco Hilton
in a couple of weeks, but that would be like offering you a drink in
Easter Island later this year, wouldn't it? :-)

I live at least an hour's drive away from LAX. It's quicker for you to fly
to Guayaquil during rush hour here.

Gonna be in Cozumel any time this July?

"Jason O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
Greg Mossman wrote:
Again, what are the chances that there are two such William Boyds?
Assuming, rightly, that the odds are much less than 50/50, I have easily
satisfied your burden of proof requirement. Also, I'd remind you that
this
is not a court of law, but a court of Usenet.

If we were talking about a cowboy named Hillary, you might have a stronger
case. But this is an ISP, and few first names are more common than
William.

It's an ISP serving Oklahoma which has perhaps 2 or 3 internet-literate
citizens in the entire state. Next, the William Boyds in question posted to
the same newsgroups (soc.retirement and alt.war.vietnam), with the two
e-mail addresses being used during two adjacent but not overlapping time
spans. It seems very obvious to me that one single William Boyd simply
changed the e-mail address associated with his news account, but for the
dense folk like you and Bob, I guess I'll prove my case further.

Hoppy's earlier posts are signed: "Posted by HOPPIE, 30 Years Active Duty
,13 Campaigns Vietnam, Life Member; Am.Lgn,DAV,VFW,AFSA". Hoppy is also an
extremely outspoken homophobic as exhibited by various colorful threads he
started with subjects like "More Homo News" and "Fagots [sic] and Magots
[sic]". Hoppy's usenet careers ends with a final couple posts on March 31.

William's usenet career takes off exactly a week later, on April 7. He
stopped using the early sig and started signing his posts "PE". So that
threw me even though it was still pretty obvious. I knew I needed proof to
nail my point through really thick skulls.

So I dug a bit more, embarrassingly spending minutes instead of seconds, and
finally found this post by Hoppy that neatly ties him to William aka PE:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...lin.de&rnum=58

We could only get PBR and Olie on a regular basis. (PE)

Papa Echo

There you go. Beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'd say even unequivocally,
Hoppy/William Boyd is the same as William/William Boyd is the same as
PE/Papa Echo.

Are you satisfied yet?

"Greg Mossman" wrote in message ...
"Reef Fish" wrote in message
...

You made that offer only because you know I don't drink and don't go to
crummy joints/places. Pretty good odds on you not having to buy. :-)

Darn, I just shelled out $5 for drink insurance in case you decided to show.

Not a wise move! The insurance cost more than my drink would have cost
had I shown up.


I made you several offers for drinks at the LAX Hilton, the smok town
in which you live. I could have offered you a drink at the Time Square
Hilton in Manhattan where I posted the above, or the San Francisco Hilton
in a couple of weeks, but that would be like offering you a drink in
Easter Island later this year, wouldn't it? :-)

I live at least an hour's drive away from LAX. It's quicker for you to fly
to Guayaquil during rush hour here.

Gonna be in Cozumel any time this July?

Could be. I don't plan that far ahead when it comes to DIVING. So
many oceans, so many good places to dive.

But I can offer you a drink at the Avenues of the Americas Hilton
in Manhattan NY, anytime during the week of 7/7-14. :-) I don't
think you can drink enough to be worth me shelling out any amount
for drink insurance though.

You may have to wait till August for your next LAX Hilton drink
offer, before my 24-day cruise (the one that includes Papeete,
Moorea, Easter Island, Lima Peru, Manta Ecuador, and a few less
exotic places. :-)).

-- Bob.

"Greg Mossman" wrote in message ...
"Reef Fish" wrote in message
om...


Again, what are the chances that there are two such William Boyds?
Assuming, rightly, that the odds are much less than 50/50, I have easily
satisfied your burden of proof requirement. Also, I'd remind you that this
is not a court of law, but a court of Usenet.

But you HAVEN'T established with ANY evidence, let alone the
preponderance of evidence, that someone who posted under the email
address was indeed the who
made the post in question. The reason I gave was this:

use others' email addresses to post quite often -- as kids
use dad's; wife use hubby's, or vice versa; friends use
friend's; ad nauseum. Statistically, the chances that the
two William Boyds posting under
and are NOT the same person is much
higher than YOU think.

In any event, the burden of proof lies with YOU to proof sic
that your is unequivocally the same poster
.


Now you say "unequivocally" which is even greater
than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

BHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now THAT's a statement that made it both unequivocal
and beyond a reasonable doubt" that you don't know as much about LAW
as you think you do, as I had already said probably both you and
Judge Wapner were ignorant about the DOUR different kinds of courts
and their "proof" standards.

Now you're sending Judge Wapner and Judge Judy LAUGHING in duet,

Let me chime in as a trio, in the laughing chorus. :-)


I was Full Professor at Harvard when Joself L. Gastwirth gave a
Joint Colloquium Lecture to the Harvard Law School and the Harvard
Department of Statistics, on the topic, "Statistics and Law," the
substance of which was later published in The American Statistician
55 (February 1992).

The talk and article were based on DATA on 10 Federal judges
who were asked to rate THEIR "probability assessment" of guilt
of defendants before they would convict, under different known,
standard conviction criteria, stated in non-probabilistic terms:

(criminal. as in O.J. criminal trial) Beyond any reasonable
or shadow of a doubt. O.J. was not convicted.

(Certain Federal) Clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence.

(Certain Other Federal) Clear and convincing evidence.

(Civil, as in Judge Wapner's court) Preponderance Of Evidence.


All judges got the last one right, answering with probability
numers (stated in percents) like: 50+, 50.1, 51, reflecting
only their numerical precision or roundoff digit used.

A few judges clearly erred, as Greg Mossman did, rating
"unequivocal evidence" as higher probability than what it
takes to convict in criminal court, requiring "beyond any
reasonable or shadow of a doubt" which most judges related
to 90& and 95%, whereas the "unequivocal" proof was
correctly related to 75%, or at least a probability figure
LESS than their 90 or 95% figures used.

Greg "unequivocally" which is even greater
Greg than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

No Greg. Go back and review some law books. :-)

YOu have not SHOWN a shred of evidence that
is the SAME poster as . You only asked
an irrelevant question reflecting your own faulty conjecture.

See also the references in:

http://www.willyancey.com/statistical_evidence.htm

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
om...

A few judges clearly erred, as Greg Mossman did, rating
"unequivocal evidence" as higher probability than what it
takes to convict in criminal court, requiring "beyond any
reasonable or shadow of a doubt" which most judges related
to 90& and 95%, whereas the "unequivocal" proof was
correctly related to 75%, or at least a probability figure
LESS than their 90 or 95% figures used.

Greg "unequivocally" which is even greater
Greg than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

No Greg. Go back and review some law books. :-)

Uh huh. Unequivocal = "without doubt". Beyond a reasonable doubt =
"without reasonable doubt". If it's unequivocal, there can be no doubt,
reasonable or unreasonable. Therefore, it is a higher burden of proof.

YOu have not SHOWN a shred of evidence that
is the SAME poster as . You only asked
an irrelevant question reflecting your own faulty conjecture.

Uh huh. See my reply to Jason where I proved unequivocally that they are
one and the same.

Greg Mossman wrote:
There you go. Beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'd say even unequivocally,
Hoppy/William Boyd is the same as William/William Boyd is the same as
PE/Papa Echo.

Are you satisfied yet?

So which client did you bill this time to?
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Jason O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
Greg Mossman wrote:
There you go. Beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'd say even
unequivocally,
Hoppy/William Boyd is the same as William/William Boyd is the same as
PE/Papa Echo.

Are you satisfied yet?

So which client did you bill this time to?

It was pro bono work. Are you satisfied yet?

Darn, I just shelled out $5 for drink insurance in case you decided to show.

You FOOL! You IDIOT! You poor dumb *******!
Drink Insurnace *NEVER* pays. It always cost more...

What... Oh? We've already done that rat-hole?
Sorry. grin

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
-- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.