From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:54:37 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

linda@wpg.com (Linda Guidry) writes:

>From article <1992Sep09.184823.29285@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
>> Oh, I've come to the conclusion that Linda does exist.  You see, I don't
>> just sit here on my hands, waiting for your next heart-rending post.  Now,
>> the big question is:  Did you write the post for her?

>Thanks for recognizing my existence.  Whatever changed your mind?  

Why, M'Lady, your dulcet tones.

>What makes you think that a woman named "Guidry" would need a ghost 
>writer to express her own ideas?  

Oh, it's never been a question of need.  It's more a question of ballot-
stuffing.  Remember back that far?

>> See, if you wade back to the original deal here, it was a simple post on my
>> part stating how *amazingly* simliar your style is to the post that was
>> puportedly made by Linda.  How innocuous a beginning, eh?  What was it about
>> that observation that put a bug up your butt so badly?  Striking a bit too
>> close to the core of the truth?

>Your memory is faulty.  Before I had ever posted anything to 
>t.p.a., you were claiming that I was a piece of fiction.  Now 
>you're saying that similarities in style led you to your original 
>conclusion.  What came first, the chicken or the egg?

No, *your* memory is faulty.  My post went like this:

-----

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>The "Yes" vote won by a 2 to 1 margin.  The totals are:

>   Yes -- 6 votes
>   No  -- 3 votes

>Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) -- Yes

>Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
>linda@wpg.com -- Yes

Apparently our good pal Russell isn't above a little ballot-stuffing.

Nice job, Russell, though a little thin on originality.

Let's all just agree that it won by 5-3, not 6-3.

----- 

Right after that, I got a message ascribed to you, but with terrific similarity
to Russell's style.  Gee, kinda like this last one. 

As a matter of fact, here's how you and Russell sound on some issues - see if
you can tell who's who - 

On 'sexism':

>Do you think it's amusing to "fun" an 
>individual by making demeaning, sexist comments about his 
>coworkers?  

>They would have
>been just as sexist and just as demeaning if the sex roles had
>been reversed.  


On 'humor':

>if you really believe your 
>comments were humorous, perhaps you should send them to the 
>moderator of rec.humor.funny to see if he agrees.  

>Do you think that it's humorous for some of us
>to point out bad conditions when and where we find them?


On 'posting':

>I find this very difficult to believe.   Would you mind reposting
>the pertinent paragraph(s) of the article in question?

>If it's true that Russell sent you an email message that was 
>identical to my posting, please post it.  


Now, just for the hell of it, there's another angle you might find amusing.
I've been hanging around the written media for a number of years now, and I've
noticed all sorts of neat mannerisms that people have - how they form thier
paragraphs, spacing, punctuation, and all that jazz.  One that jumps out at
me with you two (or one) is that your right margins are identical, and still
very much away from the statistical mean.  Here's some data:

Average line length in messages
-------------------------------
Todd Hedenstrom         75.06 chars
James M Hoskins         72.92
Rich Young              72.80
Dan Sorenson            72.52
Rob Unglenieks          71.72
Robert Black            69.33
Linda Guidry            62.77
Russell Lawrence        61.64

Now, to get the mean, throw out the high (me) and the low (Russell), and that
gets you a mean line length of 70.34 chars.  Now, consider that low, because
if you really are the same writer, then you've skewed it with the second
lowest.  Anyway, using the 70.34 figure as a mean, here's where we are in
percentages high and low:

Todd Hedenstrom         +7%
James M Hoskins         +4%
Rich Young              +3%
Dan Sorenson            +3%
Rob Unglenieks          +2%
Robert Black            -1%
Linda Guidry            -11%
Russell Lawrence        -12%

Now, explain just how it is that you not only sound the same, but have the
same writing habits, so clearly skewed from the mean?  If Linda's score was
removed, we'd have had a near-perfect bell curve, even with the small data
base.

Honestly, Linda/Russell - keep up the sputtering, it's quite amusing.  The
simple fact remains, as a forger, you're a failure.  You've been found out.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals