--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > To use a Judy phrase, "go back and read what I wrote." > > > The totals listed were for a whole MONTH, dummy. So > > > during the month of October (4.42 "posting weeks") I > > > posted an average of 49.32 posts per day, > > > > That's a lot of posts per week let alone per month at "49.42 posts per > > day". I'm reading what you wrote Barry but it isn't getting any clearer. > > Ah, isn't this fun? > > ERROR ERROR ERROR. Probably Turq meant 49.32 posts *per week*, his fingers > typing faster than his brain.
Ha, ha. That is funny Xeno, I misread "month" for 'week' in Barry's post and he, funnily enough, re-enforced the numbers by mistyping. Go with the flow baby, it's all hilarious. I have trouble doing 20. This past week up to last night I had 8, Turq had 44, and Judy 49. I'm slow typing to FFL, and I make mistakes like this. It does help to proofread what one types. > > I have always thought on forums etc., it would help to have a program to scan > the input, and reject anything shorter than a certain number of total > characters, a certain number of sentences, and a certain number of > paragraphs, and perhaps a certain minimum grade level of comprehension. That > would get rid of the short snappy comments people snap off, and force them to > think or drop out. >
