GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-04 > 1176941611


From: Peter Stewart <>
Subject: Re: Clues from Lists-Indexes, vol. 30 (Chancery Proc., Series II,1621-1660)
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:13:31 -0700
References: <1176851480.829146.252200@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com><f04uk2$u31$1@mouse.otenet.gr><1176895842.862619.100550@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com><f055f9$12l$2@mouse.otenet.gr><1176909678.666737.86810@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com><FFwVh.15459$M.6088@news-server.bigpond.net.au><1176934436.418204.283730@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com><tdxVh.15490$M.14092@news-server.bigpond.net.au><1176936868.169167.259170@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1176936868.169167.259170@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>


On Apr 19, 8:54 am, John Brandon <> wrote:
> What about clear and truthful reportage of actual numbers of people's
> postings, Peter? You must have tacked on at least 100 to my real
> numbers for March. Silly rabbit, lies are for kids.

You are actually half right, for a change: the number of your posts in
March was indeed misreported by me at 279. However, this was not a lie
but an error.

The proper number is 163. The mistake was made by not setting precise
enough sort terms, and capturing all the occurrences of the full name
"John Brandon" within the spreadsheet - so the extra 116 wrongly
included his name in subject lines and so counted all messages from
all posters in threads headed "John Brandon" and "Latham - but really
John Brandon".

The false high number is an accurate gauge of Brandon's nuisance value
in March, but by no means accurate as to the number of his posts. For
this, of course, I take responsibility, and I apologise to Brandon and
to the newsgroup.

Peter Stewart


This thread: