If you don't, why do you mention it?
If the information is useless, why do you worry about it?
Paranoia ill becomes you, my friend, especially ill thought out paranoia.
Well, that's rather inconsistent of you, wouldn't you agree?
According to all available evidence, you openly posted cinFLA's posting patterns in this post in which you -- in response to tdadams' assertion that "[S/he] is a certifiable nutcase. Medically, clinically insane" -- countered:
(cinFLA was not pinged to the post, which runs afoul of commonly accepted FR etiquette.)
I don't think he (or she) is that bad. His (her) posting patterns are interesting, from my viewpoint, though.
The next morning, P_A_I responded to your post of cinFLA's posting patterns thusly:
The following morning, in response to the above-noted P_A_I post, you posted another Freeper's chart (once again, without his being pinged), with this note:
Seems to be a sort of '9 to 5' posting pattern, which seems to be typical of certain overly conformist types around here. Perhaps its indicative of the bureaucratic mind at work.
This silently suggests that P_A_I had somehow requested Roscoe's chart. Why? Could it be that P_A_I sought support for his postulate about the posting patterns of "the overly conformist types around here," as Roscoe is occasionally viewed as being? It could indeed be, but there is no record of P_A_I's "interest" in Roscoe's chart in the thread. Apparently, P_A_I's request was through either email or FReepmail; nevertheless, Roscoe's posting patterns were provided by you in the thread. You didn't seem to think twice about whether you should email P_A_I.
You were interested in Roscoe.
To all but the most vindictive OR fretfully dense readers, it is clear that you either believe -- or wish others to believe -- that the posting patterns are some sort of indication of one's mental health or lack of same. At the very least, such murmurings are as irritating as when astrology buffs tell you they know more about you then you know about yourself based on your date of birth.
Your smarmy, disingenuous response to FL_engineer -- "If the information is useless, why do you worry about it? Paranoia ill becomes you, my friend, especially ill thought out paranoia" -- begs more questions in response: If you are truly agreeing that the information is 'useless,' why did you write the program that performs the task and refer to the posted results as "interesting, from my viewpoint"? If you discovered that an ideological opponent was making inferences about your character to potentially hundreds of thousands of people using information that you didn't have access to, wouldn't that be a reason to distrustful -- NOT "paranoid" (Definition #2)?