We are just older and cranky now.

Sent from my iPhone
Stephen Russell
901.246-0159


On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Gene Wirchenko <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 16:35 2009-10-11, Ed Leafe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>>    You mean act as if FoxPro is the focus of this forum?  Is that
>>> allowed?  I know: it will have to be allowed.  Given the number of
>>> [OT] posts, we FoxPro posters can claim minority status.
>>
>>        From the September 2009 statistics:
>>
>> Total Posts: 967
>> (Down 31.95% from August, 2009)
>>
>> Total [OT] Posts: 241
>> (Down 45.6% from August, 2009)
>>
>> Total [NF] Posts: 216
>> (Down 45.59% from August, 2009)
>>
>>        That means that there were 510 Fox posts, or 53% of the total.
>> Counting [NF] as being relevant, the on-topic ratio hits 75%. Even
>> allowing for some mis-labeling, that's hardly a "minority".
>
>      My remark was somewhat jocular, but I am, sadly, not that far
> off.  How about 3+% mislabelling?  That would be enough if [NF] posts
> are not FoxPro posts.  I suggest that they are not given what "NF"  
> stands for.
>
>      I have a backlog of ProFox posts from 2001 that I received but
> never read and that I have been slowly going through.  The difference
> in tone is remarkable.  The 2001 posts are, in general, quite polite
> and on-topic.  A rude post is very unusual.  It is rather different
> now.  What changed?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to