Tony Earnshaw wrote on Sun, 15 Jun 2003 18:48:20 +0200: > Course I didn't take offense at *anything* you have said, say now or > will say in the future. I don't know what this is about; quoting could > help jog my memory. It's a huge list, and I can't find the bit you're > talking about here. Anyway, my excuses if I made you feel you had to > write this. >
Hi Tony, it was your response below. I really didn't quite understand it, but was wondering what Gerhard Schröder had to do with this or "statistics". And so I figured there was a slight chance that this was intended to express that you didn't like my reply. Whatever, thanks for clarifying. :-) Have a nice week! > >>That's exactly what I was saying (perhaps I'd misunderstood Tom.) I > was > >>trying to say that teaching it spam under the level that one > has defined > >>as being spam - even if it is spam - amounts to > defeating one's own > >>purpose. > > > > No, that's exactly what Tom was questioning and after thinking > about it for > > two seconds it becomes obvious that he's right. One > should teach Bayes > > every spam it doesn't get known otherwise. > > Do you remember the indignant voice of Gerhard Schröder (clip was in > > English) when being told by D. Rumsfeld that he was obliged to take > part > in the "war" against Irak? > > Well, that's how I feel about this particular thing. Some balmy > > institute once forced "statistics" down my throat. > Kai -- Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
