On Dec 15, 2005, at 11:07 PM, The Fool wrote:
From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:55 AM, The Fool wrote:
Furthering the tradition of being the first to respond to their own
posts I will include some further data points:
Results 1 - 3 of about 5 for "king kong racism". (0.11 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 123,000 for "king kong" racism. (0.13
seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 512,000 for king kong racism. (0.34
seconds)
Furthering the tradition of responding with nonsense, I will include
some even further data points:
Results 1 - 100 of about 567,000 for sing song racism. (0.36 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 116,000 for ling long racism. (0.98 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 61,800 for wing wong racism. (0.64 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 35,500 for ding dong racism. (0.34 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 32,400 for wring wrong racism. (0.40
seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 644 for bing bong racism. (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 4 of 4 for qing qong racism. (0.54 seconds)
Dave Land
(Hell, even jing jong racism got almost 600 hits)
Results 1 - 10 of about 494,000 for king kong racism -"donkey kong".
(0.34 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 75,700 for king donkey kong racism . (0.29
seconds)
I can't believe we forgot:
Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "ping pong racism". (0.46 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 97,800 for "ping pong" racism. (0.16 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 71,400 for ping pong racism. (0.77 seconds)
It's odd that the more-constrained "ping pong" racism got *more*
results than the less-constrained version. Ahh, the mysteries of Google.
Dave
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
