🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>   It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this
> newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion.
  [ etc. ]

Look, Rich *does* post software in batches. At time t after a batch
there *is* a flood size f(t) of complaints, where f is a generally
increasing function. These are facts.

You try to explain them by saying ``when there are enough complaints,
Rich posts a batch to shut people up.'' In other words, complaints cause
postings.

I find it more plausible that Rich doesn't bother reading every idiotic
complaint in this group, and people shut up when they see all the useful
software they get. In other words, postings cause a drop in complaints.

There is no logical argument that will prove one of these theories
correct. Correlation does not imply cause. So stop assuming that your
whining is the impetus behind further postings in comp.sources.unix.

> And, as I pointed out in the paragraph
> which you quote, the six empty months in the last twelve would seem to imply
> that the current rate is NOT two packages per week!

Jon, other people in this discussion have bothered to check their facts,
rather than posting a hundred lines of ``comp.sources.unix *could* be
slowing down, so panic panic panic!'' I suggest you gather some relevant
statistics before you post further drivel. No offense intended.

---Dan