| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 43 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 108:42:06 |
| Calls: | 290 |
| Files: | 905 |
| Messages: | 76,699 |
In article <lk3gnjllrhri50javvqo96s83cujmsbqte@4ax.com>,<snippo sig, which a proper client should be doing anyway>
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:16:07 -0500, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/1/25 1:44 PM, Bice wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 03:33:30 -0700, The Doctor
<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.writtenI think there's something wrong with whatever you're using to come up
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
84 | Bice | 1 | 1,651 | 0 | 0.01% >>>>----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
with these stats. I don't post often, but I knew I had definitely
posted more than once in the last year. So I went back and counted
and found a dozen posts I sent to rec.arts.sf.written in 2024.
-- Bob (Bice)
Yeah, spot-checking my own and a few others, the numbers in the original >>>post line up closely with an aggregate tally for Sept-Dec.
Perhaps the earlier months have been deleted from its database. Or >>something like that.
Anyone else wishes to try either Xananews or MesNews?
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:34:32 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <lk3gnjllrhri50javvqo96s83cujmsbqte@4ax.com>,<snippo sig, which a proper client should be doing anyway>
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:16:07 -0500, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com> >>>wrote:
On 1/1/25 1:44 PM, Bice wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 03:33:30 -0700, The Doctor
<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.writtenI think there's something wrong with whatever you're using to come up >>>>> with these stats. I don't post often, but I knew I had definitely
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
84 | Bice | 1 | 1,651 | 0 | 0.01% >>>>>----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
posted more than once in the last year. So I went back and counted
and found a dozen posts I sent to rec.arts.sf.written in 2024.
-- Bob (Bice)
Yeah, spot-checking my own and a few others, the numbers in the original >>>>post line up closely with an aggregate tally for Sept-Dec.
Perhaps the earlier months have been deleted from its database. Or >>>something like that.
Anyone else wishes to try either Xananews or MesNews?
I think that, if you are going to post these at all, and we find
reason to believe that the data is wrong, /you/ are the one who should
do the checking.
If only out of pride in your work.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | %
----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|
1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40%
3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67%
4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37%
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx"
intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | %
----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40%
3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67%
4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37%
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx"
intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11
posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low)
got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total
only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of
just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the
3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like
a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all
the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you
tell?
-- Bob
In article <67798b99.2022134875@127.0.0.1>, Bice <eichler2@comcast.net> wrote: >>On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:16:42 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | %
1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93% >>>> xxxxxxxxxx----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40% >>>> 3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67% >>>> 4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37% >>>>
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx"
intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11
posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low)
got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total
only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of
just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the
3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like
a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all
the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you
tell?
-- Bob
Could be the CPU just could not handle such a large input.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:15:59 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <67798b99.2022134875@127.0.0.1>, Bice <eichler2@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:16:42 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | %
1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93% >>>>> xxxxxxxxxx----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40% >>>>> 3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67% >>>>> 4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37% >>>>>
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx"
intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11
posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low)
got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total
only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of
just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the
3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like
a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all
the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you
tell?
-- Bob
Could be the CPU just could not handle such a large input.
Well, that's what you get when you try to do this stuff on an 8008
with scant memory and no hard drive.
Alternately, we could always blame Linux ...
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
In article <84dlnj1m6uanfl6cto5ptdiilop3ocpr1t@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:15:59 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:
In article <67798b99.2022134875@127.0.0.1>, Bice <eichler2@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:16:42 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | % >>>>>>
1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93% >>>>>> xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40% >>>>>> 3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67% >>>>>> 4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37% >>>>>>
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx"
intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11
posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low)
got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total
only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of
just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the
3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like >>>> a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all
the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you
tell?
-- Bob
Could be the CPU just could not handle such a large input.
Well, that's what you get when you try to do this stuff on an 8008
with scant memory and no hard drive.
Alternately, we could always blame Linux ...
Yet AMD 64-bit CPUs...
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
On 1/5/25 11:26, The Doctor wrote:
In article <84dlnj1m6uanfl6cto5ptdiilop3ocpr1t@4ax.com>,<eichler2@comcast.net> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:15:59 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:
In article <67798b99.2022134875@127.0.0.1>, Bice
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:16:42 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | % >>>>>>>
1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40%
3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67%
4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37%
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx"
intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11
posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low)
got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total
only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of
just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the
3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like >>>>> a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all >>>>> the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you
tell?
-- Bob
Could be the CPU just could not handle such a large input.
Well, that's what you get when you try to do this stuff on an 8008
with scant memory and no hard drive.
Alternately, we could always blame Linux ...
Yet AMD 64-bit CPUs...
You can blame GNUlinux for my postings but not much else.
If CBM had remained in business you could blame AmigaOS.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.01- Linux 6.6.69- Plasma 5.27.11
In article <vleq48$16l63$1@dont-email.me>,
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 1/5/25 11:26, The Doctor wrote:
In article <84dlnj1m6uanfl6cto5ptdiilop3ocpr1t@4ax.com>,<eichler2@comcast.net> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:15:59 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >>>> Doctor) wrote:
In article <67798b99.2022134875@127.0.0.1>, Bice
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:16:42 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | % >>>>>>>>
----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|
1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705 | 64.93%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0 | 4.40%
3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98 | 3.67%
4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3 | 3.37%
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx" >>>>>>>> intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11
posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low) >>>>>> got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total >>>>>> only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of >>>>>> just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the >>>>>> 3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like >>>>>> a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all >>>>>> the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you
tell?
-- Bob
Could be the CPU just could not handle such a large input.
Well, that's what you get when you try to do this stuff on an 8008
with scant memory and no hard drive.
Alternately, we could always blame Linux ...
Yet AMD 64-bit CPUs...
You can blame GNUlinux for my postings but not much else.
If CBM had remained in business you could blame AmigaOS.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.01- Linux 6.6.69- Plasma 5.27.11
But I was using MesNews on Win10 on an Asus X555 .
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 01:42:14 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >Doctor) wrote:
In article <vleq48$16l63$1@dont-email.me>,| 64.93%
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
On 1/5/25 11:26, The Doctor wrote:
In article <84dlnj1m6uanfl6cto5ptdiilop3ocpr1t@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 03:15:59 -0000 (UTC), doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The >>>>> Doctor) wrote:
In article <67798b99.2022134875@127.0.0.1>, Bice >>><eichler2@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:16:42 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
I found this interesting bit:
***** Users with highest total size of messages *****
num| Name | size | Nb Msg | or. | % >>>>>>>>>
----|-----------------------------|------------|--------|-----|------------------|1 | | 16,422,887 | 6,002 | 705
| 4.40%xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Paul S Person | 1,114,057 | 315 | 0
| 3.67%3 | Lynn McGuire | 928,572 | 341 | 98
| 3.37%4 | D | 852,999 | 247 | 3
Is the first line, perhaps, a total line? With the "xxxxxxxxxx" >>>>>>>>> intended to show where the actual list begins?
That is certainly my take on it. It seemed obvious.
I'm wondering if all the "uncounted" messages (like my missing 11 >>>>>>> posts and those of other people whose totals look suspiciously low) >>>>>>> got lumped together into that #1 no-name entry at the top.
If you add up all the numbers of posts by named posters, the total >>>>>>> only comes out to 3,038, not 6,002.
If the post total was really 3,038, that works out to an average of >>>>>>> just over 8 posts a day, which seems low. If you add 6,002 to the >>>>>>> 3,038, that give an average of around 25 posts a day, which seems like >>>>>>> a more reasonable number.
So I'm going with that nameless first line as being the total of all >>>>>>> the "unclaimed" posts.
Yeah, I'm a bored computer programmer on vacataion, how could you >>>>>>> tell?
-- Bob
Could be the CPU just could not handle such a large input.
Well, that's what you get when you try to do this stuff on an 8008
with scant memory and no hard drive.
Alternately, we could always blame Linux ...
Yet AMD 64-bit CPUs...
You can blame GNUlinux for my postings but not much else.
If CBM had remained in business you could blame AmigaOS.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.01- Linux 6.6.69- Plasma 5.27.11
But I was using MesNews on Win10 on an Asus X555 .
The only time my computers have been overwhelmed is when Windows 10
was running it's own heavy-duty programs and hogging the CPU. I found
opening Task Manager to be both informative and helpful in getting
Windows 10 to back off. At least for a while.
And, anyway, I don't think r.a.s.w is busy enough to overwhelm a
modern processor.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Group : rec.arts.sf.written
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | % ----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
1 | | 6,002 | 16,422,887 | 705 | 66.42% xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Lynn McGuire | 341 | 928,572 | 98 | 3.77%
3 | Paul S Person | 315 | 1,114,057 | 0 | 3.49%
4 | D | 247 | 852,999 | 3 | 2.73%
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025, The Doctor wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.written
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|1 | | 6,002 | 16,422,887 | 705 | 66.42%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Lynn McGuire | 341 | 928,572 | 98 | 3.77%
3 | Paul S Person | 315 | 1,114,057 | 0 | 3.49%
4 | D | 247 | 852,999 | 3 | 2.73%
Congratulations on the victory Lynn! Paul, you put up a good fight. Well >deserved second place!
Group : rec.arts.sf.written
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
84 | Bice | 1 | 1,651 | 0 | 0.01%
<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.written
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | % >>----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
84 | Bice | 1 | 1,651 | 0 | 0.01%
I think there's something wrong with whatever you're using to come up
with these stats. I don't post often, but I knew I had definitely
posted more than once in the last year. So I went back and counted
and found a dozen posts I sent to rec.arts.sf.written in 2024.
-- Bob (Bice)
In article <16300969-07a7-5c8c-ed5f-23d38586a1e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025, The Doctor wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.written----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
1 | | 6,002 | 16,422,887 | 705 | 66.42%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Lynn McGuire | 341 | 928,572 | 98 | 3.77%
3 | Paul S Person | 315 | 1,114,057 | 0 | 3.49%
4 | D | 247 | 852,999 | 3 | 2.73%
Congratulations on the victory Lynn! Paul, you put up a good fight. Well
deserved second place!
Who the blank is blank?
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025, The Doctor wrote:
In article <16300969-07a7-5c8c-ed5f-23d38586a1e4@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025, The Doctor wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.written----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
1 | | 6,002 | 16,422,887 | 705 | 66.42%
xxxxxxxxxx
2 | Lynn McGuire | 341 | 928,572 | 98 | 3.77%
3 | Paul S Person | 315 | 1,114,057 | 0 | 3.49%
4 | D | 247 | 852,999 | 3 | 2.73%
Congratulations on the victory Lynn! Paul, you put up a good fight. Well >>> deserved second place!
Who the blank is blank?
This is a very good question! Until he announces himself, I will continue
to have Lynn as the winner. Lynn better hope he does not announce himself, >since he would then be bumped down to second place. =/
On 1/1/25 1:44 PM, Bice wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 03:33:30 -0700, The Doctor
<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.written
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|
84 | Bice | 1 | 1,651 | 0 | 0.01%
I think there's something wrong with whatever you're using to come up
with these stats. I don't post often, but I knew I had definitely
posted more than once in the last year. So I went back and counted
and found a dozen posts I sent to rec.arts.sf.written in 2024.
-- Bob (Bice)
Yeah, spot-checking my own and a few others, the numbers in the original >post line up closely with an aggregate tally for Sept-Dec.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:16:07 -0500, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/1/25 1:44 PM, Bice wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 03:33:30 -0700, The Doctor
<doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
Group : rec.arts.sf.written
Statistics : from 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
***** Users with most messages *****
num| Name | Nb Msg | size | or. | %
----|-----------------------------|--------|------------|-----|------------------|84 | Bice | 1 | 1,651 | 0 | 0.01%
I think there's something wrong with whatever you're using to come up
with these stats. I don't post often, but I knew I had definitely
posted more than once in the last year. So I went back and counted
and found a dozen posts I sent to rec.arts.sf.written in 2024.
-- Bob (Bice)
Yeah, spot-checking my own and a few others, the numbers in the original >>post line up closely with an aggregate tally for Sept-Dec.
Perhaps the earlier months have been deleted from its database. Or
something like that.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"