You made the claim that it's "likely" (or "somewhat likely" or whatever it was) for the usage of those words/phrases to be a coincidence. I take it you no longer claim that.
you asked me a question and i gave my opinion. i wouldn't call that "making a claim". it's certainly not like
making a thread called "PrimeNumber7 is an alt of Quickseller". i would consider it unlikely at this point, although i'm still frustrated that nobody in the thread could really articulate anything about the statistical significance of the data. everything boils down to "that looks compelling". so that's where i stand.
On the flip side, neither myself nor nutildah ever aimed to prove something "beyond a doubt". You're welcome to have any doubts you want.
i appreciate that, though by comparison i'd say that tspacepilot was significantly more humble about the limits of his "experimental" model despite seeming much more well versed in forensic linguistics and statistics.
back then, basically everyone acknowledged it was not proof either. the only reason quickseller was officially "caught" was that he had a meltdown in the thread and eventually just admitted it in some bizarre attempt at rationalization.
i was a bit perturbed that people seemed to be accepting the OP as
proof ("Forensic linguistics never fail." etc etc) and probably took out some of that out on you and nutildah, apologies.
@nutildah almost everything in my last post went right over your head.
let's agree to disagree.
Sometimes all you need is a little doubt to walk away in the eyes of the law but in the court of public opinion we all know OJ is guilty even if there wasn't enough to convict in the eyes of the law (or you just have a really good lawyer who can talk a good talk and sew enough seeds of doubt). I wouldn't tag QS negative but I never tagged him originally anyway, but I think a neutral based on the evidence we have would be fine if that's what people want to do.
i agree with all that. like i said from the start, i have the same suspicions as everyone else. but i strongly believe this falls under "circumstantial evidence" and is therefore undeserving of red trust. i think anything else would be bad precedent and would encourage more lynch mob behavior.
in fact just to be clear---i don't give a shit about quickseller. what i'm obviously bothered about is this lynch mob culture, and the tendency to throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. the OP admitted he lacked proof but wanted to make the accusation anyway, just to see if it would develop into the downfall of PrimeNumber7. and truthfully we all know:
you don't need proof if you get the right people on your side. the danger of mob mentality is ever present....