On 20 Mar 2002 at 14:48, Trei, Peter wrote:
24
>
> Of the 62 messages, a total of 7 were signal, IMHO. Your opinion
> will of course, be different than mine, and I have no intention of
> trying to explain or justify my classifications to others.
>
Nonetheless, others will attack your classification, starting with me!
For the most part, I agree with your classification (and not just
because my only post made it into the coveted "signal" category),
but I think you made a clear error in putting the "meta discussions"
posts into the "noise" category. As evidence, I submit your
very post to which I am now replying. Clearly it falls
into the "meta discussions" category, but if you seriously
considered
it to be noise you wouldn't have posted it, right? Or are you
deliberately posting noise? why would you do such a thing?
> You might want to try the same little game - in a 24 hour period,
> how many posts were you *glad* you saw?
>
But that's a very different question. I try to keep my posts on
topic, but that doesn't mean anyone does (or should) consider them
worth reading.
> Peter Trei
>
>
George
