On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:26:59AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > Oh c'mon. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that I'm > > dishonest. After all, you are the one that said your package has "0 > > entries in popcon"[1], then tried to change it to "used"[2] once I had > > shown you to be incorrect (knowing full well that "used" is a different > > category in popcon), then said that I gave the "impression" that nobody > > was installing your packages, even when my own figures showed some of > > them were installed on 3% of the machines. This is being honest how. > > well, frankly, your use of percentages was a little dishonest to say the > least, > as it let you round-off many packages to '0'.
I had no idea what the results would be before running the program, and did not alter it to adjust those results later. You have no basis to know whether I was being dishonest or not. Moreover, right from the start I said that they were percentages. I also published the code used to generate this for public inspection and analysis, with a complete change history. It includes the specific popcon file I used (so that the results can be validated even after the next popcon update, and so that they can be compared to popcon before the next update). > you should have given actual numbers, and let people calculate the percentages The actual numbers are already in popcon. Implementing "cat" would probably not have helped much here. > partly your fault for not being more clear or providing column headings that > indicated percentages). i guess other readers might have missed that too. Quite possible; though using this as a basis for assuming I am being dishonest is quite a leap indeed. > in any case, you have shown yourself to be dishonest on numerous occasions in > this long and tortuous argument. you have no care for truth, or honour - you > will utter any lie in the name of your cause. Which is interesting statement, since you have yet to describe even one such occasion.
