On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:57:53 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > >We've now gotten to the point where we are discussing strongly conflicting >data from different sources. Rereading my post, I was worried that it >might appear that I will simply not accept any number you put out. But, I >am applying self consistent rules, well at least they are consistent as far >as I can tell.
>1) Projections must be taken with a big grain of salt. Hard numbers win >hands down over projections. >2) Government consumption figures are pretty accurate. >3) Two sites quoting a third count as one reference, not three. Additional >references must be independent to be add weight to a previous one >4) If a variety of industry information is provided, the most pessimistic >is the most likely to be accurate. >5) One page general overviews with massive generalizations are less >trustworthy than detailed explanations that give credible sources. 6) Shifting the discussion to match the data available is pointless. Anyway, I've used up my playtime for now. Thanks. Dean _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
