Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    One possible soft spot, Eric, is your methodology for determining
    whether a note participates in a challenge or disagreement.  Semantic
    analysis is notoriously tricky even when one is not trying to winkle
    out something as fuzzy as verbal style, and since I presume you
    eyeballed the data rather than used a validated protocol, it's not
    impossible that your process was skewed.  There's certainly
    considerable disagreement in the community about whether some
    individual note is or isn't a challenge!  The disagreement seems to
    align on political boundaries, but there's some correlation with sex
    membership too I think.
    
    On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone has ever argued about
    "discriminate" disagreement.  I thought the whole issue was more one of
    _in_discriminate disagreement, isn't it?  But that could be just that I
    don't understand what you mean by your term, exactly; I take it to mean
    the opposite of indiscriminate, ergo something like careful, pointed,
    focused, not wholesale, etc.; yes?
    
    I think it would be really interesting to try something like this with
    a valid semantic-analysis protocol, but I'm not sure any of us have
    that kind of time to spare (does anyone need a dissertation topic?)
    
    						=maggie

    Sorry to rathole this note a bit, but as an Experimental Psychologist
    manque', I've been wondering for months now about whether there are any
    books, theses, monographs, journal articles, or popularized
    science/technology articles about VAX Notes.  Not conventional BBSing,
    where multiple-threaded conversations are not supported as naturally as
    in this medium.
    
    There must be; I've heard rumors that such articles exist.  Strikes me
    that it would be an absolute goldmine to look into, for an academic; by
    DEFINITION, **all** of the data to be analyzed are right here, in black
    and white.  Not to minimize the difficulties that Maggie alluded to in
    -.1, but they've got to be far less daunting than reducing physical
    interpersonal interactions (body language, sex/rank differences) or
    even (as in audio-only interactions) tone of voice, to coded data...
    
    Any pointers out there?  Thanks!

    You slay me Eric.... 
    
    Where in hell do you find the time for such serious analysis?
    
    And if anyone is interrested, I tend to agree with Mike.
    
    Although, I am sure that noone is....

	I am aware of at least two papers done on VAX Notes usage.
	I recommend them both.

	A Master's Thesis by Anne Marie Brako called "Conference
	Communication: In the Boardroom Or on the Computer?" It's
	available through the MRO library and, I assume, the Digital
	Library Network. (1988)

	A paper done by David Skyrme (Digital UK) called "The Evolution
	Of A Knowledge Network". (1989) I believe copies may still be
	available through David (DAVID SKYRME @REO - I don't have a VMS
	MAIL address.)

	I would be interested in hearing about others that may exist.

			Alfred

    
    who cares?
    

           
                           I do.

                                               -Robert Brown III

    Actually, edp, your study disappointed me.  As I read along, I
    thought that you were going to use the data to analyze modes
    of address; i.e., which gender called whom by name (first or last),
    and whom by number, and whether this changed between whether the
    two parties agreed or not.  Because of this, your analysis of
    what you were interested in lost my attention.  As Maggie (?)
    indicated, the categorization seemed too subjective to me.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .12, aha! Eric, you expressed a *feeling*! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Eric, I am distraught!  You have confused [my] expectation with
    desire!
    
    						Ann B.

    Before this becomes a platform for making sarcastic comments about each 
other, I'd like to suggest that someone take EDP's raw data and look at
the kinds of things Ann suggested in 79.11.

   That's what I intend to do, though it is doubtful that any results that I get 
would be accepted here. But having someone do this whose results would be
accepted would be much more productive than simply "losing interest" in the 
study.

   The study does have inadequacies, but the raw data is available. What harm 
would there be in examining it?

                                                      -Robert Brown III

re: .15
    
    > But having someone do this whose results would be accepted would be
    > much more productive than simply "losing interest" in the  study.
    
    Would it?  To those who are interested in the results of this study -
    perhaps.  I really don't feel this study can reveal true data in any
    given direction, given the small sample taken and the variety of
    noters, topics, moodswings, flamage/debate, and gentle discussion that
    goes on here on a daily basis.  I just don't think this notesfile can
    be pinned down, distilled, and bottled for our perusal and inspection
    like another scientific experiment.  I think it is too delicate, and too
    volatile, and too temperamental, and too emotionally vacillating, to
    result in any analysis on one portion of it that would indicate trends
    correctly across the board.

    > The study does have inadequacies, but the raw data is available. What 
    > harm would there be in examining it?
    
    There would be no harm, if someone has the time.  But I, for one, would
    not find credible applying the results of the analyses to the larger
    context of the entire notesfile.
    
    Some who enjoy sampling data and analyzing and finding rules and trends
    and so forth are welcome to do so, but even given data, analysis,
    trend-spotting, graphs, arrows, standard deviations, and the like, I
    don't think anything will have been "proven" about the notesfile.  It's
    just not that kind of place.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re: .16
    my feelings exactly.
    

In Referene to 79.16 and 79.18

   Information can be gathered.

   Samples can be increased.

   Facts are facts. The only thing that can effectively discredit facts are
other facts.

   Nonetheless, I do agree with "The Doctah". If people have already made
up their minds about something, no amount of data will change their minds. This
is true in the larger world. Apparently, it is also true here.

   Thank you, "Doctah", for reminding me of this.

   So despite trivializations, Jody is probably correct. It certainly would be
a waste of time to post any data gathered about any trends the people in this 
file may have.

    But knowledge is power.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    Intuition is power too.  So are emotions.  So is creativity.
    
    -Jody

    Actually, that is counter-intuitive.
    
    						Ann B.

    I am quite aware of the death of John Eric-Hexum (I'm sure I've
    mangled that spelling.), but I am trying to point out to you
    that "intuitive" does not mean what you think it means in that
    context.  He thought it would be harmless because of what he
    had been told all his life "Oh, they're only shooting blanks!",
    and not about what his ears and hands told him.
    
    						Ann B.

Over the years, I have seen the assertions that:

	Women cannot express an opinion in =wn= that departs significantly
	from traditional societal norms (i.e., a "feminist" view) without
	being challenged or derailed *by men*.

	Men cannot criticize the "feminist party line" in =wn= without
	being challenged or condemned.

I have seen these views expressed often enough that I have the impression
that many people regard one or the other as simple fact.

If they are facts rather than purely personal perceptions, then they ought
to be subject to empirical validation.  Eric's study, reported in .0, appears
to be a very reasonable attempt at this.  His methodology may certainly be
questioned, on grounds that the sample size is too small, the classification
methodology subject to bias, or whatever; and these might all suggest 
directions for further research.  But I am surprised by suggestions that
the entire enterprise is pointless -- that the essence of the file is too
subtle to be evaluated by such crude statistical methods.  Given the very
negative aspect of the beliefs I mentioned above, I would think that there
would be a considerable value in any attempt to discover whether they are
actually true or not.

	-Neil

    I agree, Neil.  Given a good methodology, the results should be both
    valid and intensely interesting.
    
    						=maggie

    I agree with Maggie.  The trick is getting a good methodology.
    Consider:  A discussion on AB starts.  A man asks about BA.
    A woman replies that BA is not AB, and that while it is a valid
    topic, it doesn't belong in one on AB.  The man persists.
    
    Is this a man (however unconsciously) derailing AB?  Is this a
    woman forbidding a criticism?
    
    In the first case that comes to mind, I would call it the former.
    Someone else would call it the latter.  Another person would
    score it in both columns.  We don't have a methodology.
    
    Also, our culture is inclined to accept anecdotal evidence as
    definitive, even when it contradicts surveys.  (I do too.)  This
    is not scientific.  (I will not make a conclusion about what it
    IS.)  Given this, I'm not sure we can even *get* to a methodology.
    
    						Ann B.

    I second that a good methodology will be difficult to arrive at, one
    that will yield applicable results.  The biases of the readers, the
    writers, the evaluators, fluctuations in participation level and
    emotional charging in any given direction, would need to be taken into
    account.
    
    and re: .26
    
>   I would think that there
>   would be a considerable value in any attempt to discover whether they are
>   actually true or not.

    That's precisely the problem.  Truth is subjective to most people.  
    
    If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese because they've
    seen it I doubt, based on my readings and experience, that I would
    believe it's true.  
    
    If someone tells me they have proof that there is a direct link between
    their dreams and the stock market which can be translated from the
    number of times the words "dollars" and "cents" come up in their
    dreams, even though they give me concrete written proof of their dream
    interpretations and the stock market and the relative fluctuations, 
    it would probably sound so far beyond my experience and what I consider
    to be reliable that I would probably doubt them enough not to invest my
    money in stock based upon their dreams.  
    
    If someone tells me this file is thus-and-such based on their findings,
    yet my findings show it to be different in my experience, I still don't
    think their truth will become my truth, or anyone else's truth who sees
    things differently from the way they do.
    
    -Jody

    
    	Obviously, some people think everyone in DEC works 9 to 5.
    
    	I haven't worked 9 to 5 for this company since 1985 - although
    	I've worked every other imaginable shift (including 3 and 4
    	day work weeks.)
    

    Suzanne,
    
    Of course, it doesn't count entries deleted by the author or by
    the moderators, either for word count or time of entry.
    
    						Ann B.

	Ahem....who cares?????


	_peggy

    
    i would gladly read twice as many of suzanne's words
    

    
    	Wow, does this ever bring back nostalgic memories of past versions
    	of Womannotes!  I wonder how many others remember the other disgruntled
    	male noter who tried to make a case against me for the frequency and/or
    	length of my notes.  

    	It's a good thing I didn't delete the program I wrote to do a study
    	of my own notes.  I have a feeling it will come in handy for a long,
    	long time.  ;^)

    	   o  In this version of Womannotes, I have been an active participant
    		for the past 188 days.  Most of my noting is done from home,
    		so I'm a 7-days-per-week contributor.

    	   o  In these 188 days, I've written an average of 2.54 notes per day.

    	   o The total notes I've written add up to 2.8% of the total number 
    		of notes written in Womannotes during the entire 188 days.

    	Here is a breakdown of the length of my notes:

    		0  -  25 lines       381 notes
    	       26  -  50 lines	      78 notes
    	       51  -  75 lines        17 notes
    	       76  - 100 lines         2 notes
    	        Over 100 lines         0 notes

    	As for the content of any person's notes, it's in the eye of the
    	beholder (eg, subjective) - which doesn't lend itself to numerical
    	study.

    	For statistics buffs, here's more interesting data my program
    	just popped out:
    
    		 >  0  -  25 lines      381 notes
    	         > 26  -  50 lines	 78 notes
    	         > 51  -  75 lines       17 notes
    	         > 76  - 100 lines        2 notes
    	         >  Over 100 lines        0 notes

    	Of my 381 notes 25 lines or less, 329 of them are 0 - 17 lines
    	long.  17 lines is the length of one screen.

    	In other words - of the 2.54 notes I wrote on the average per day 
    	in 188 days (amounting to 2.8 percent of the total number of notes 
    	written in Womannotes during this time)...

    		- 79.7 percent of ALL my notes are 25 lines long or less.
    
    		- 68.8 percent of ALL my notes are only one screen long.
    
    		- 49.8 of these "one screen notes" are 0 - 10 lines long.
    
    		- 34.3 percent of ALL my notes are 10 lines long (OR LESS!)

    
    hey, suzanne, could you run that on my notes one of these days?
    it sounds like fun!
    

Well, I was shocked to learn that that Suzanne Conlon has twice as
many tabs in her notes than edp!!!  

    
    	RE: .39  John
    
    	Well, I understand there are support groups for people who tab
    	excessively.  I'm looking into one now.  ;^)
    

   Well, Suzanne,
                 
        It just goes to show what lengths you'll go to in order to communicate;)

    
    Barb

    
    
    RE .36 
    \
    
    You said you note 7 days a week. You must have a wonderful social life,
    or is this your social life?
    
    
    bonnie

    bonnie
    
    I hope that wasn't meant as a 'shot' against Suzanne..
    
    I manage to read the file just about every day of the week and
    have both a happy marriage, & a social life (and read books on
    the side. :-) )
    
    Bonnie

    
    	As for me, I'm on a one-day vacation today - approved by my
    	manager.  I'm doing other things (also had an appointment earlier)
    	- but I still check into notes from time to time.
    
    	Sometimes I miss things this way - I missed the entire set of notes
    	about me that were hidden earlier in another topic, for example.
    	But I get the gist of what's going on - and sometimes happen on
    	things that just occurred.
    

RE:		Suzanne and	<TABS>

Well,	Suzanne,	the first	step is recognizing	you
have	a	problem.

Good	luck	at	your	tabaholics	anonomous
meetings.

	john	heffernan

	Of course it may be                the            problem
	is                  to        many              spaces
	which     can              be confused         with     tabs
		except they             don't always        line up
	the way you expect   the     to that is except when using
		VAX Document when   nothing   lines up the way    y-
	ou expect              them to.    

	Or we could be talking about lines of code which could be
	equal to one physical line or as in Pascal (maybe) everything
	between; is consider to be one line of code and therefore
	the number of lines in the notes written would have to have
	all the characters between ; counted as one line in a note.

	Or we could just shelve the whole concept of counting nits.

	_peggy









	don't forget about the number of blank lines entered with the
	<cr><lf> charater - they would not be pleased if they were not
	also counted with the rest of the charaters.




	I am in a strange mood today.

    

The first step in weaning yourself from excess tabs is to find an appropriate 
substitute.

I recommend Diet Pepsi, myself.

    
    	RE: .48  Paul
    
    	Ok, I'm up for it.
    
    	How many spaces does Diet Pepsi advance (and can I adjust this
    	on my Workstation?)
    

Depends how much you spill and under which keys.

    
    	Thhankss, Paulll --
    
    	Myy   keeyboarrrd    seeems   a  bit    squishy  annd   sporradic,
    	but I'mmm    surre  it  will  bee  ok when  itt dries......
    
    	- Suzannnnne 
    

    Watching this could be what the PR types call "an electrifying
    experience."
    
    --bonnie

    
    	Well, my keyboard seems ok now - but, the crt on my workstation
    	looks kinda thirsty ...
    
    

W
 e                                                  t h i s   n o t
  l    ,  t            o u                      o                   e
    l       h        r    n d   a   l         s                      
            i       a                 o  t ,                         
           s                                         g n             i
   e t           g                                t      i         s
 x             n               p u             o             o g
  t           i          y         s  s e m                 
               r       o                                 r o
     i          e                                    w        t
       s       v       u              s o           h          s
           w  a       r           s                a            e
                            t i c           a        t ?      t
                  s      s                 r                n
                  t     i                e                o
                    a t                                 c
                                            w       
                                              e       a
                                                                    
                                               h       g
                                               a      
                                                 v     n
                                                    i

    
    well *i'm* impressed.
    

I just spilled some Jolt Col
a on my keyboard I   j u s t 
  s p i l l e d   s o m e   J
 o l t   C o l a   o n   m y 
  k e y b o a r d I   j u s t 
  s p i l l e d   s o m e   J
 o l t   C o l a   o n   m y 
  k e y b o a r d I   j u s t 
  s p i l l e d   s o m e   J
 o l t   C o l a   o n   m y 
  k e y b o a r d I   j u s t
   s p i l l e d   s o m e   
J o l t   C o l a   o n   m y
   k e y b o a r d I   j u s 
t   s p i l l e d   s o m e  
 J o l t   C o l a   o n   m 
y   k e y b o a r d I   j u s
 t   s p i l l e d   s o m e 
  J o l t   C o l a   o n   m
 y   k e y b o a r d I   j u 
s t   s p i l l e d   s o m e
   J o l t   C o l a   o n   
m y   k e y b o a r d I   j u
 s t   s p i l l e d   s o m 
e   J o l t   C o l a   o n  
 m y   k e y b o a r d I   j 
u s t   s p i l l e d   s o 
m e   J o l t   C o l a   o 
n   m y   k e y b o a r d I  
 j u s t   p l l e d   s o m
 e   J o l t   C o l a   o n
   m y   k e y b o a r d I  
 j u s t   p l l e d   s o m
 e   J o l t   C o l a   o n
 m y   k e y b o a r d I   j
 u s t   p l l e d   s o m e
   J o t C o l a   o n m y  
 k e y b o a r d I   j u s t
   p l l e d   s o m e   J o
 t C o l a   o n m y   k e y
 b o a d I   j u s t   p l l
 e d   s o m e   J o t C o l
 a   o n m y   k e y b o d I
   j u s t   p l l e d   s o
 m e   J o t C o l a   o n 
m y   k e y b o d I   j u s 
t   p l l e d   s o m e   t 
C o l a   o n y   k e y b o 
d I   j u s t   p l l e d   
s o m e   t C o l a o y   k 
e y b o d I   j u s t   p l 
l e d   s o m e t C o l a o 
y   k e y b o d I   j u s   
p l l e d   s o m e t C o l 
a o y   k e y b o d I   u s 
  p l l d   s o m e t o l o 
y   k e y b o d I   u s   p 
l l d   s o m e t o l o y   
k e y b o d I   u s   p l l 
d s m e o l o y   k e y b o
 d I   u s   p l l d s m e o
 l y k e y b o d I   u   p 
l l d s m e o l y k e y b o
 d I   u   l l d s m e l k 
e y b d I   u   l l d s m e
 l k e y b d I   u   l l d 
s m e l k e y b d I   u   l
 l d s m e l k e y b d I   
u   l l d s m e l k e y b d
 I   u   l d s m e l k e y 
b d I   u   l d s m e l k e
 y b d I   u   l d s m e l 
e y b d I   u   l d s m e l
 e y b d I   u   l d s m e 
l e y b d   u   l s m e l e
 y d     l s m e l e y d   
  l s m e l e y d     l s m
 e l e y d     l s m e l e 
y d     l s m e l e y d    
 l s m e l e y d     l s m 
e l e y d     l s m e e y d
     l s m e y d     l s e 
y d   l s e y d   s e y d  
 s y d   y d   y d   y d   
y d   d   d   d   d dAnd boy
, do I feel jumpy... A n d   
b o y ,   d o   I   f e e l  
 j u m p y . . . A n d   b o 
y ,   d o   I   f e e l   j u
 m p y . . . A n d   b o y , 
  d o   I   f e e l   j u m p
 y . . . A n d   b o y ,   d 
o   I   f e e l   j u m p y .
 . . A n d   b o y ,   d o   
I   f e e l   j u m p y . . .
 A n d   b o y ,   d o   I   
f e e l   j u m p y . . . A n
 d   b o y ,   d o   I   f e
 e l   j u m p y . . . A n d 
  b o y ,   d o   I   f e e 
l   j u m p y . . . A n d   b
 o y ,   d o   I   f e e l  
 j u m p y . . . A n d   b o
 y ,   d o                                                               I   f e 
e l   j u m p y . . . A n d 
  b o y ,   d o     f e e l 
  j u m p y . . . A n d   b 
o y ,   d o     f e e l   j 
u m p . . . A n d   b o y , 
  d o     f e e l   j u m p .
 . . A n d b o ,   d o     f
 e e l   j u m p . . . A n d
 b o , d o     f e e   j u m
 p . . . A n d b o , d o    
 f e e   j u m . . . A n d b
 o , d o     f e e   j u m .
 . . A n d b o , d o     e e
   j u m . . . A n d b o , d
 o   e e   j u m . . A n d b
 o , d o   e e   j u m . . A
 n d b o , d o   e e   j u m
 . . A n d b o , d o   e e  
 j u m . . A n d b o , d o 
  e e   j u m . . A n d b o
 , d o   e e   j u m . A n 
d b o , d o   e e   j u m .
 n b o , d   e j u m . n b 
o , d   e j u m n b o , d  
 e j u m n b o , d   j u m 
n b o d j u m n b o d u m n
 b o d u n b o d n b o d n 
b d n b d n b d n b d n b d
 n b d n b d b d b d b d b 
d b d b b b


    	RE: .57  Mike Z.

    	> Suzanne, I see you do not deny being the noter who does most
    	> of the writing in this conference.

    	It seems strange that a mere 2.8 percent of 100% total can be
    	considered to be "most of the writing in this conference."  
    	Obviously, you read Womannotes with a very selective eye.

    	As for what anyone else does in Womannotes, I wouldn't know.

    	My program only researches my own notes.  I have neither the need
    	nor the desire to see what could be revealed by a study of anyone
    	else's notes (nor would I post such information even if I had the
    	slightest desire to know myself.)
    
    	Obviously, such information would be far more useful to you than
    	it could ever be to me.

    
    Ping-Pong noting will not be tolerated in this or any other string.
    Please take any dialogues to MAIL.
    
    
    Justine

    
    
    re .57, MikeZ:
    
    I am *sooooooo* bored with your notes about Suzanne!
    
    

         <<< Note 79.57 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "Ed's Jackhammer School" >>>


>	Suzanne, I see you do not deny being the noter who does most
>    of the writing in this conference.


close but no banana, User "CONLON" only it makes into 4th
place in the "top ten" writers of this conf
(based on number of notes written)

         <<< Note 79.62 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "Ed's Jackhammer School" >>>

>	Remove the moderators and look again.


in that case its now second place 

    
                   "does anyone REALLY care?"
    

         <<< Note 79.65 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "Ed's Jackhammer School" >>>

>.63>in that case its now second place 

>	Interesting.

>	Are you counting # of replies, or words?

excluding mods (which is really wrong since not all notes
written by a moderator are moderator notes (if you get my
drift))

by number of notes, 2nd position
by number of lines written, 2nd position


(I dont interrogate the notes contents at all)

    Frankly, Scallop...

    
    >>Frankly, Scallop...
    
                I don't give a clam!
    

    jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but NEVER jam today!
    
    
    (sometimes the irrational is a justifiable response :')
    

    "Nobody, the king said, as he slid down the bannister
     NOBODY, the king said, would call me a fussy man
    		but I would like a little bit of butter to my bread....."
    
    -Jody
    
    

    I'm not *that* old!
    
    						Ann B.

    nor I

Actually, the law states that:  the chances of a buttered piece of bread 
landing face down are in direct proportion to the cost of the carpet!

(*8

E Grace

    re: .77
    
    And to how badly the child eating it wants the bread, and how
    dirty the floor is.
    
    --bonnie

    it never falls sticky-side-down for Teela Brown
    

    Re (I think) .74, the quote "Frammin'..." is a magical incantation,
    spoken by the Wizard of Id.  One of my favorite W of I strips,
    paraphrased:
    
    	The Wizard is at his work, when two peasants, husband and wife,
    	enter.
    
    	Peasant.  Wizard, my [spouse] suffers a terrible headache.  Can
    		  you help?
    
    	Wizard.   Alakazam!!  [one peasant disappears in a cloud of smoke.]
    
    	Remaining spouse.  Oh, THANK you, Wizard!
    
    aq
    

Re: .83

>    Is there a NEXT UNSEEN/IGNORE=79.* command?


Yes. Use the experimental tool "seen" described in the PAN conference. I use it
and love it.

	-- Charles

    I've read all 85 replies to this topic, and not as single one
    says anything about the Star Trek character after whom this
    topic is named. Talk about topics going off in tangents.
    
    --- jerry

    Wrong conference, Jerry :-)

    ST:TNG is not a topic of interest to women?
    
    

>    ST:TNG is not a topic of interest to women?


   Hahaha!  It is to THIS woman!   I tape it religiously every Saturday
   night and watch it religiously every Sunday morning...followed by
   Twin Peaks.

   8-)


   kath   
    

    
    re:.89
    how can you tell them apart?
    

              <<< Note 79.68 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "yup, I'm him" >>>


.67>by number of notes, 2nd position
.67>by number of lines written, 2nd position

	To investigate this, I updated my data with new, current notes
    extractions.

	As of 6:30pm October 29th 1990, your data is wrong and my claim
    in 79.30 now stands as verified and correct.

	I have both the raw data files and the program I used to tabulate
    the files' contents, in case anyone would like to double check my work.

-mike z

I think I've reached agreement with mike z (via mail) that 
my figures are indeed correct, 

thus (by number of notes) 2 nd position is correct



              <<< Note 79.68 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "yup, I'm him" >>>


.67>by number of notes, 2nd position
.67>by number of lines written, 2nd position

	To investigate this, I updated my data with new, current notes
    extractions.

	As of 6:30pm October 29th 1990, your data is wrong and my claim
    in 79.30 now stands as verified and correct.

	I have both the raw data files and the program I used to tabulate
    the files' contents, in case anyone would like to double check my work.

-mike z

    pick a little talk a little pick a little talk a little
    pick pick pick talk a lot pick a little more
    

mike z, please read very carefully your note 79.68
.. in it you quote my note which states very clearly
that my ranking was by number of notes (and also
number of lines)

in your note you state "your data is wrong"

but now that i have backed up my figures and proved them
to be true.. _now_ you want to move the goal posts
and talk of "number of words"


please decide first the selection method, rather than
finding _a_ method that 'proves' your claim

              <<< Note 79.68 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "yup, I'm him" >>>


.67>by number of notes, 2nd position
.67>by number of lines written, 2nd position

	To investigate this, I updated my data with new, current notes
    extractions.

	As of 6:30pm October 29th 1990, your data is wrong and my claim
    in 79.30 now stands as verified and correct.

	I have both the raw data files and the program I used to tabulate
    the files' contents, in case anyone would like to double check my work.

-mike z

              <<< Note 79.97 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "yup, I'm him" >>>


>	Not at all, and you have not backed up both of your claims.
>	It is your claim of 2nd place, based on total # of lines,
>    that I dispute.

then why not tell me that rather than quoting "number of notes"
and "number of lines" in your note.. 


if you are trying to point out one object it helps if you
label it


>	If you believe that total # of words is not the proper yardstick
>    for determining "who has written the most?", suggest a better one.

>	It seems so intuitive that # of words is the best, most fair,
>    most honest way to judge who is the most prolific that I cannot
>    believe you would think that was picked to suit my needs.

so if you were pointing all the time at "number of words"
why did you dispute my figures clearly labeled
"number of notes" and "number of lines"... if I'am talking about
X and you about Y how can you dispute my figures.. or i your
figures

you cannot have it both ways (you can try.. but it dont work)



(I'am off in the morning for a two day break in North Cornwall..
but if by the time I get back we can figure out if we are
talking about

number of notes

or

number of lines

or

number of words

or

number of a->z and A->Z bytes

or

number of times the word "dronk" is used in a note

or

number of notes written on a Thursday in a month with an "R" in the month

or

number of notes written using double spacing




then i'll be more than happy to collate/check such figures
.. as long as I know what we are talking about

    may I politely point out that no one really cares, and ask that
    this subject be dropped..
    
    this is a file for subjects of interest to women, not a file
    for men to argue statistical analysis..
    
    if there are women who find this topic interesting I would
    encourage them to pursue it, but it currently appears to
    be a private conversation between two (three?) men, and I would
    like to ask them most politely to take this to mail.
    
    many thanks
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comods

    Actually, I was kind of hoping that we might get some REALLY
    interesting statistics, like

    	o  Who writes the most notes while naked
    	o  Who eats the most junk food while writing notes
    	o  Who writes the most notes when the moon is full
	o  Who reads the most conferences simultaneously
	o  Who excludes the highest number of bodily functions (e.g.,
    	    sleeping, eating) from their lives in order to make time
    	    for reading notes 
 
    -- Mike

    Please take it to mail.

    re 79.100
    
    noting while nekkid...
    	not me.  not a local call for me, so while i might occasionally
    	log on with not much on, i don't think i can compete.
    junk food...
    	count me out again.  quite often i will drink spring water.  not
    	company bought, of course, stuff i have to lug in myself.
    full moon...
    	i'm quite often outside howling at the moon.  this past weekend
    	was beautiful, no?
    
    bummer....looks like i shan't be making this list at all.
    

    
    i often note naked...usually in the wee hours of the morning
    

Sorry!.. we've moved over to mail




      <<< Note 79.102 by MOMCAT::TARBET "For a gypsy's life's unstable" >>>
                        -< <*** Moderator Warning ***> >-

    Please take it to mail.