X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Jul 17 14:42:05 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0907141259q4556b7e2o2bd1fb18068e178f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bc2.4a4db562.378d5671@aol.com>
	<c3b2b3db0907140744q1f74b14cv7b6b84b296b3f6e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0907140810l66813775v1c11eabab9dcb7e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<6fb557d70907141204r1b7d3849nd6d7e9bd5438434a@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0907141259q4556b7e2o2bd1fb18068e178f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:41:43 +0300
Message-ID: <6fb557d70907170541x1f3c1deeqd2314c6741955654@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog <miacek08@googlemail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -2.5
X-Spam_score_int: -24
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  Read this
	http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/1/Nordling28-39.html - find the name Carr
	there. There are similar cases of ''scientists against science'' these
	days, too. Typical example would be Gorodetsky, though he's admittedly a
	petty figure. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] question
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.5
X-Spam_score_int: -24
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  Read this
	http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/1/Nordling28-39.html - find the name Carr
	there. There are similar cases of ''scientists against science'' these
	days, too. Typical example would be Gorodetsky, though he's admittedly a
	petty figure. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Read this http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/1/Nordling28-39.html - find the
name Carr there. There are similar cases of ''scientists against
science'' these days, too. Typical example would be Gorodetsky, though
he's admittedly a petty figure.

M.

On 14/07/2009, Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 22:04, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog <
> miacek08@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> i agree that Siebert is a rather difficult case, exactly due to his
>> professional approach. He is constantly POV-pushing that e.g. MRP was
>> some inevitable step for ''buying time in order to build defences''
>> etc. - a completely nonsensical POV, but alas supported by many
>> Western academics.
>
>
> Supported?  Consistent, perhaps, but supported?
>
> --
> Andres Soolo
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

