# Searches and incorrect conclusions **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165 "2010-02-08T18:08:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/321 "2010-02-11T01:45:25Z")
> [@Mbossa](#): > > It’s quite fun, actually. We get all the best grass to graze on, and our large numbers help protect us from predators. What’s it like to go against the herd without thinking? I am neither against the herd nor non-thinking. Just out here on the edges where there starts to be less “herd” and more “other stuff”. It has its costs and benefits too, just like anything else. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/322 "2010-02-11T01:55:41Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:319, topic:528165”] It’s only page 2 for me. You also don’t seem to grasp that the number of pages in a thread varies depending on who is looking at it. It’s a setting in your user CP. [/QUOTE] OK then, ~ 350 messages in if the conversion was not clear. > [@](#): > > Hmmm. Missed that one. **CarnalK** , you cut it out, too. Why do I get a warning and he gets the smallest rebuke you could think of (Or at least that I could think of if I were giving rebukes)? His post was 13 posts earlier than mine,. Also, as an aside, is your appearance in the Free Speech thread today as a mod or as a poster? You hadn’t been there posting prior in a thread that goes back 24 days now, and yet you posted 6 minutes after warning me here. Was it coincidence, or did your review here maybe pique your interest in Free Speech issues (one can hope and dream!), or … Just wondering…I look forward to your contributions there… ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/323 "2010-02-11T04:07:51Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Just out here on the edges where there starts to be less “herd” and more “other stuff”. It has its costs and benefits too, just like anything else. One of those benefits is that the lions eat you. The whole herd wins, and costs them nothing. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/324 "2010-02-11T04:22:05Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > One of those benefits is that the lions eat you. The whole herd wins, and costs them nothing. We are all gonna die somehow. If the most important thing to you in your life is to not die by lion, then enjoy the center of the herd looking at sheep asses all the time. It’s a big world, do what you want 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FloatyGimpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/floatygimpy/32/7750_2.png) [@FloatyGimpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FloatyGimpy)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/325 "2010-02-11T04:38:54Z")
**not\_alice** I hope you are not holding to some grand notion that you, and you alone, are standing up for what is right and just when all those around you cave to peer pressure, leaving you to stand, alone on a hill, holding up a beacon of light and integrity. Rest assured this is not the case. You are not some hero for justice. You’re a loon, you know, cuckoo bananas. At first I thought your posts were annoying, then you started to really aggravate me. Eventually they became so ludicrous that it was funny for a while. Now it’s just stupid. You’ve actually made me feel sorry for the moderators who have to deal with you. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/326 "2010-02-11T05:14:01Z")
> [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > **not\_alice** I hope you are not holding to some grand notion that you, and you alone, are standing up for what is right and just when all those around you cave to peer pressure, leaving you to stand, alone on a hill, holding up a beacon of light and integrity. > > Rest assured this is not the case. You are not some hero for justice. You’re a loon, you know, cuckoo bananas. > > At first I thought your posts were annoying, then you started to really aggravate me. Eventually they became so ludicrous that it was funny for a while. Now it’s just stupid. > > You’ve actually made me feel sorry for the moderators who have to deal with you. Life is too short to stay where you don’t want to be. So if you are sticking around, I assume you want to be here. If not, have fun wherever you end up and thanks for stopping by! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/327 "2010-02-11T05:35:09Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Ah I think I see your disconnect now! > > That is not him ranting about kiddy porn, that is a decent summarization of the legal debate. No, that was not a disconnect. That was me understanding what was actually going on. While you managed to be oblivious and remain fascinated by the legal nuances, there was a clear focus in that thread on the child porn aspect of Australian free speech rules. Some of it from knowing the posters’ involved history and partly from a plain reading. I never said anyone ranted, I just said it was clear who was arguing for what. It was not as obvious as the others in Giraffe’s examples but was fair to be included, imho. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/328 "2010-02-11T05:47:44Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No, that was not a disconnect. That was me understanding what was actually going on. You understood because you were in his head? He told you? You were participating in the thread and its predecessor? Or you are just pontificating as a passerby? > [@](#): > > While you managed to be oblivious and remain fascinated by the legal nuances, there was a clear focus in that thread on the child porn aspect of Australian free speech rules. It was not what you say, since you don’t seem to be willing to accept or verify that that was about as routine as FD debates get, with or without you know who, this forum on anywhere really. You will feel embarrassed if you ever come across some of those types of threads in various places in the future. Let it go. > [@](#): > > Some of it from knowing the posters’ involved history and partly from a plain reading. And so a person who does not know the poster’s histories would conclude what you do knowing them, from just reading that thread? Remarkable! I was in the thread participating, I did not know the history, and I did not get it! I was oblivious for weeks even though the thread stayed in my mind because of what I learned about Aussie Free Speech. And no one else in the thread participating or lurking objected or has yet to object. Unlike all the other threads Giraffe listed. And I am not sure about this because who can keep track of everything, but I think that Giraffe was the only one to object to that thread. Why is it that those in the thread did not object, yet people in the other threads were very quick to object if they were equally offensive? That is what I don’t get. This one seems qualititatively different in every way. > [@](#): > > I never said anyone ranted, I just said it was clear who was arguing for what. The Americans were arguing for American style free speech and the Aussies mostly seemed satisfied with theirs, to our chagrin. Of course that is obvious. > [@](#): > > It was not as obvious as the others in Giraffe’s examples but was fair to be included, imho. Thanks for sharing. That is what I opened the thread for. I don’t have to agree with you, nor you with me, but at least you are trying to explain yourself more than most and that is helpful. ---
**Author:** ![Pray\_for\_peace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Pray\_for\_peace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pray_for_peace)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/329 "2010-02-11T06:40:55Z")
It’s like deja vu all over again. **not\_alice** demands answers! Remarkable! ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/330 "2010-02-11T07:00:23Z")
> [@Sidney Evgeni Jordan](#): > > It’s like deja vu all over again. **not\_alice** demands answers! Remarkable! And I predict no one will ever be able to provide a shred of evidence no matter how many times they say it is there and I ask to see it! I bet you would predict the same thing too! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/331 "2010-02-11T07:03:11Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You understood because you were in his head? I never claimed any psychic abilities. What I know of his head is from what I’ve read from his posts here. Believe it or not, that actually does give me more insight into motives than your apparently proudly held ignorance of same. > [@not\_alice](#): > > He told you? I have exchanged no personal messages with him or emails, if that’s what you mean. All that I have been told is what I’ve read here. > [@not\_alice](#): > > You were participating in the thread and its predecessor? Well, a simple perusal of the thread, which you’ve apparently done a number of times, would show you that I was not a participant. So this is rhetorical? > [@not\_alice](#): > > Or you are just pontificating as a passerby? While that is not the verb I would have used, I suppose that it is substantively correct. What is your point? That I have no vested interest, therefore my opinion is to be discarded? > [@not\_alice](#): > > It was not what you say, since you don’t seem to be willing to accept or verify that that was about as routine as FD debates get, Routine or no, this one smacked of concern for the oppression of kiddy porn. > [@not\_alice](#): > > with or without you know who, this forum on anywhere really. Well, I don’t have much concern for how widespread this routine is on the internet. I am merely addressing your Pitting that says Giraffe mischaracterized that thread. > [@not\_alice](#): > > You will feel embarrassed if you ever come across some of those types of threads in various places in the future. Heh, not if it’s filled with self satisfied snobs like you. lol > [@not\_alice](#): > > Let it go. That shouldn’t be a problem. If I feel like it. > [@not\_alice](#): > > And so a person who does not know the poster’s histories would conclude what you do knowing them, from just reading that thread? Possibly, depends on if they have an ounce of thoughtful cynicism, rather than the mindless contrarianism of some internet warriors I can think of. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Remarkable! I was in the thread participating, I did not know the history, and I did not get it! It becomes less and less remarkable reading your posts in this thread > [@not\_alice](#): > > I was oblivious for weeks even though the thread stayed in my mind because of what I learned about Aussie Free Speech. I guess that’s what I’m pretty much saying. > [@not\_alice](#): > > And no one else in the thread participating or lurking objected or has yet to object. Unlike all the other threads Giraffe listed. Have I missed in this thread the mods disclosing which threads were reported? > [@not\_alice](#): > > And I am not sure about this because who can keep track of everything, but I think that Giraffe was the only one to object to that thread. Well, as I said, I don’t know what threads were reported to the mods, but I trust you’ve noticed all the people in this thread that have agreed with Giraffe’s assessment of the thread and backed his inclusion of it into his Pit OP. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Why is it that those in the thread did not object, yet people in the other threads were very quick to object if they were equally offensive? Because, like I said he was a little less obvious? > [@not\_alice](#): > > That is what I don’t get. This one seems qualititatively different in every way. It is a little different, I’ll give you that. > [@not\_alice](#): > > The Americans were arguing for American style free speech and the Aussies mostly seemed satisfied with theirs, to our chagrin. Of course that is obvious. Yes, that was there. That’s what blinded you to the secondary theme running through. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Thanks for sharing. That is what I opened the thread for. I don’t have to agree with you, nor you with me, but at least you are trying to explain yourself more than most and that is helpful. Good. I hope I get a mention on your next thesis or telescope or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/332 "2010-02-11T07:43:08Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I never claimed any psychic abilities. What I know of his head is from what I’ve read from his posts here. Believe it or not, that actually does give me more insight into motives than your apparently proudly held ignorance of same. HOw does your reading a bunbch of threads give you insight into his head? YOu list below that you have no information about the way kiddie porn is handled on discussions like this internet wide, despite your apparent access to google. Yet you hang your entire conclusions based on your insight into that thread, judging what one poster says as abnormal in some way. You assert that is not biased, but it is. You refuse to even research the data I have based my argument on. In that you are surely not alone, but you should not be proud of that. You seem reasonable enough compared to some others/ Let me restate one of my earlier questions to you: Do you think a person who is familiar with Free Speech debates would read that thread alone, without knowing who’s who, and be alarmed in any way? > [@](#): > > That I have no vested interest, therefore my opinion is to be discarded? No, clearly you have an interest, my concern is you have deliberately not collected all the data, and by doing so, are able to mischaracterize the thread in question with a straight face. > [@](#): > > Routine or no, this one smacked of concern for the oppression of kiddy porn. And that is the crux of it - the people in thread, who, whether I agree with them or not, all seemed to understand the way FS debates go, saw nothing to object to. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t have much concern for how widespread this routine is on the internet. I am merely addressing your Pitting that says Giraffe mischaracterized that thread. The nature of the characterization that is incorrect is that it is anything other than typical mundane FS stuff. So if you don’t seek out if FS stuff touches on the edges of what is acceptable frequently, then you are not really trying to get it, are you? > [@](#): > > Heh, not if it’s filled with self satisfied snobs like you. lol Well, you will find people who are not going to cry like a baby when people discuss difficult topics in the abstract, that’s for sure! > [@](#): > > Have I missed in this thread the mods disclosing which threads were reported? I dunno. Have you missed the threads themselves in question and the numerous other ones where people went berserk over [_**] talking about [**_\*]? I don;t recall asking about anyone reporting anyone to mods. > [@](#): > > Well, as I said, I don’t know what threads were reported to the mods, but I trust you’ve noticed all the people in this thread that have agreed with Giraffe’s assessment of the thread and backed his inclusion of it into his Pit OP. Yes, and they are not trying. They, unlike you, are just having a little RO with their coffee. You on the other hand, are willing to listen to that tiny voice in your head that says " follow the light, follow the light"…you know deep down I am onto something, and you are not really vested in either Giraffe being right or me being right, and so you might just, in the dark of the night when it is just you and your conscience about to fall asleep, at that time you might just consider if, just what if, FS threads really DO frequently look like the one here, discussing awful topics as though they are nothing? Will you be able to tell or not if strangers in those threads discussing awful topics in the context of FS are fantasizing, not really concerned with what they are saying on the face of it? What if you can’t tell? Then is it possible that maybe the thread here was legit too? Just a little possible? > [@](#): > > It is a little different, I’ll give you that. OK. In post 331 you break with everyone ahead of me save Giraffe very early on, in that no one else will acknowledge that difference at all. Come to the light, come to the light… 🙂 > [@](#): > > Yes, that was there. That’s what blinded you to the secondary theme running through. Ah, but it is only your lack of experience in FS threads that lets you think there is any secondary theme at all. Others have suggested the thread itself was about the “theme” since it was created by, well, by the OP (fucking euphemisms in every sentence suck btw - maybe I will try an anagram generator 🙂 ) Despite it then taking about 100 posts and many many days to get to the part of the thread you are talking about, they are convinced it is all about [_**]. Which, as an aside is kind of insulting to me, because they are all but accusing ME of discussing [**_] and I wasn’t even dancing around it. It simply wasn’t in the thread. > [@](#): > > Good. I hope I get a mention on your next thesis or telescope or whatever. I was going to name it after you until that wisecrack! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/333 "2010-02-12T00:00:20Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Why do I get a warning and he gets the smallest rebuke you could think of (Or at least that I could think of if I were giving rebukes)? His post was 13 posts earlier than mine,. To be perfectly frank, you got the warning because of an accumulation. You’ve been hammering that issue in numerous threads, and mild requests to cut it out simply weren’t working. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Also, as an aside, is your appearance in the Free Speech thread today as a mod or as a poster? Strictly as a poster. > [@not\_alice](#): > > You hadn’t been there posting prior in a thread that goes back 24 days now, and yet you posted 6 minutes after warning me here. Was it coincidence, or did your review here maybe pique your interest in Free Speech issues (one can hope and dream!), or … Just wondering…I look forward to your contributions there… I don’t normally hang out in Great Debates, so I hadn’t noticed the thread. It came up in a discussion elsewhere, and I went and took a look. I hardly need to have my interest piqued in free speech issues. I’m an author and a bookseller, and I guest lecture on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/334 "2010-02-12T01:09:12Z")
Just popping in again to say that there is good news! It looks like the napkin sandwiches are gong to be ready early! Who wants extra Ketchup? ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/335 "2010-02-12T04:08:17Z")
It brings a tear to my eye to see posters who are usually at odds against one another unite against the common shit-for-brain loons. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/336 "2010-02-12T05:39:57Z")
OK, this has all been very amusing but I have to put a stop to it now, if I can. Here is how Giraffe introduced his list: > [@Giraffe](#): > > The first two pages of a search of his posts returned almost nothing but threads about sex, children, sex offenders, or threads which could be tangentially related to those topics: In this OP here, not\_alice, you say: > [@not\_alice](#): > > I can tell you I was heartily involved in that Free Speech thread, and at no time did it even dance near issues regarding pedophilia, or even pretend to allude to it. On page 2, someone in that thread linked to this story: http: [//www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/man-convicted-of-reading-child-porn/story-e6frfku9-1111116447156](https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/man-convicted-of-reading-child-porn/story-e6frfku9-1111116447156) So you simply must admit that, at least technically, you are incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/337 "2010-02-12T10:57:00Z")
After a veritable _flurry_ of posts from **not\_alice** , there has been a distinct hiatus in the last 24 hours or so. Is she sleeping off her manic episode? Is she coming down off’ve her amphetamine high? Has she finally come to the realisation that she is a complete dumbfuck? Stay tuned folks… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/338 "2010-02-12T13:50:41Z")
He. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/339 "2010-02-12T13:57:30Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Even if that happened, it doesn’t make me wrong. No, being wrong makes you wrong. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165/340 "2010-02-12T14:10:51Z")
Ah how wonderful it must be to have so much time left that you can post 127 times in defense of an incoherent OP. To be young again… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/searches-and-incorrect-conclusions/528165.md?page=18)