Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Articles most often cited in comp.all
Message-ID: <5S5{}%@rpi.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 07:07:29 GMT
References: <90023@elsie.UUCP> <994@philmtl.philips.ca>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 30

In article <994@philmtl.philips.ca> ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:

> I'm still struggling to find much value in any of these postings, except
> that they give some vague idea of popular topics under discussion.

Even that "except" is pretty bogus.  I noticed this in the last stats:

] Rank Count ID
]    1    47 <5940014@hpcupt1.HP.COM>
] 		Subject: Does time() honor leap seconds?
] 		From: swh@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Steve Harrold)
] 		Newgroups: comp.lang.c

So I thought, "Wow!  Something useful from these stats!"  I went right
on over to see the flood of information that was being posted with
regard to leap seconds.

What a crock _that_ was!  There was no flood of information.  In fact,
only seven of the articles which referenced that message id had
anything to do with time() and leap seconds.  The vast majority of the
messages which had that that id were about the idiotic "#define OR ||"
debate.  This seems to be tracable to one individual who posted a
reply to the time() question which had nothing to do with it.

Such a waste of time.  Pah.

Dave
-- 
   (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
               "Nice plant.  Looks like a table cloth."