================================================== ==========================
Analysis of posts to comp.lang.c
================================================== ==========================
(stats compiled with a script by Garry Knight)


Total posts considered: 881 over 7 days
Earliest article: Sat Oct 13 20:08:02 2007
Latest article: Sat Oct 20 20:04:03 2007
Original articles: 75, replies: 806
Total size of posts: 2,241,954 bytes (2,189K) (2.14M)
Average 125 articles per day, 0.31 MB per day, 2,544 bytes per article
Total headers: 1,034 KB bodies: 1,154 KB
Body text - quoted: 524 KB, original: 489 KB = 48.27%, sigs: 138 KB
Total number of posters: 170, average 13,187 bytes per poster
Total number of threads: 118, average 18,999 bytes per thread
Total number of User-Agents: 36

================================================== ==========================
Top 20 posters by number of articles
================================================== ==========================
1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>....................... : 55
2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>................................. : 42
3: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>.......................... . : 30
4: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>............................ .. : 29
5: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>.......................... .. : 24
6: Richard <rgrdev@gmail.com>................................ ..... : 24
7: Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net>.......................... . : 23
8: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>............................ : 23
9: =?iso-2022-kr?q?=1B=24=29CHarald_van_D=0E=29=26=0Fk?=........ .. : 22
10: user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com>............................... .. : 20
11: jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org>................................ . : 18
12: gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)................ : 18
13: "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de>............. : 15
14: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>.......................... ........ : 15
15: "James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@verizon.net>................... : 15
16: "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com>....................... : 14
17: "lovecreatesbea...@gmail.com" <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com>.... : 14
18: "cr88192" <cr88192@nospam.hotmail.com>...................... ... : 13
19: Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com>........................ .. : 13
20: vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com...................................... : 13

================================================== ==========================
Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
================================================== ==========================
1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>....................... : 155
2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>................................. : 96
3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>.......................... .. : 66
4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit).................................. : 60
5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>............................ : 59
6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>.......................... . : 59
7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>............................ .. : 57
8: user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com>............................... .. : 56
9: Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net>.......................... . : 55
10: =?iso-2022-kr?q?=1B=24=29CHarald_van_D=0E=29=26=0Fk?=........ .. : 51
11: Richard <rgrdev@gmail.com>................................ ..... : 51
12: Mahendra Kumar Kutare <imax@cc.gatech.edu>..................... : 45
13: "cr88192" <cr88192@nospam.hotmail.com>...................... ... : 41
14: jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org>................................ . : 40
15: "James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@verizon.net>................... : 39
16: "lovecreatesbea...@gmail.com" <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com>.... : 38
17: "Malcolm McLean" <regniztar@btinternet.com>.................... : 38
18: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>.......................... ........ : 34
19: gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)................ : 33
20: "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de>............. : 33

================================================== ==========================
Top 20 responders by original text (> 5 posts)
================================================== ==========================
1: Martin Wells <warint@eircom.net>............................. .. : 88.29%
2: Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com>........................ : 66.93%
3: vipvipvipvip.ru@gmail.com...................................... : 64.28%
4: hankypan1@gmail.com............................................ : 62.05%
5: "Malcolm McLean" <regniztar@btinternet.com>.................... : 58.54%
6: "cr88192" <cr88192@nospam.hotmail.com>...................... ... : 57.98%
7: "James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper@verizon.net>................... : 57.77%
8: David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net>.................... : 57.61%
9: Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>.................................... .. : 57.47%
10: Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>............................. ... : 57.29%
11: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>.......................... ........ : 56.07%
12: karthikbalaguru <karthikbalaguru79@gmail.com>.................. : 54.97%
13: "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk>............. : 53.55%
14: Mahendra Kumar Kutare <imax@cc.gatech.edu>..................... : 52.58%
15: "Chris Thomasson" <cristom@comcast.net>........................ : 52.43%
16: Jack Klein <jackklein@spamcop.net>........................... .. : 52.24%
17: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>.......................... . : 51.32%
18: jameskuyper@verizon.net........................................ : 50.51%
19: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>....................... : 49.76%
20: Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com>........................ .. : 48.72%

================================================== ==========================
Bottom 20 responders by original text (> 5 posts)
================================================== ==========================
1: Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>............................. : 25.78%
2: "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com>....................... : 26.17%
3: "lovecreatesbea...@gmail.com" <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com>.... : 26.71%
4: "¬a\\/b" <al@f.g>.......................................... .... : 26.92%
5: Philip Potter <pgp@see.sig.invalid>........................... . : 28.71%
6: Richard <rgrdev@gmail.com>................................ ..... : 29.27%
7: =?iso-8859-1?q?______S=FC_Keith_Chakotay_von_Carpati?= <is_dat_ : 31.28%
8: "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk>............................... : 31.54%
9: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>............................ : 32.18%
10: Ernie Wright <erniew@comcast.net>............................ .. : 35.66%
11: "cr88192" <cr88192@hotmail.com>............................. ... : 35.77%
12: "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de>............. : 36.24%
13: rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos)....................... : 36.41%
14: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>............................ .. : 36.99%
15: gazelle@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)................ : 37.49%
16: jacob navia <jacob@nospam.org>................................ . : 38.51%
17: user923005 <dcorbit@connx.com>............................... .. : 38.53%
18: Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.com>............................. . : 38.92%
19: husterk <husterk@gmail.com>............................... ..... : 39.04%
20: "Wade Ward" <zaxfuuq@invalid.net>............................. . : 39.63%

================================================== ==========================
Top 20 threads by no. of articles
================================================== ==========================
1: Bug/Gross InEfficiency in HeathField's fgetline program........ : 69
2: Dev-C++ compiling problem...................................... : 36
3: Goto still considered ful.................................. : 35
4: How can i read the stack frames of running process?............ : 32
5: GCC compiler error............................................. : 31
6: Software memory management reengineering....................... : 28
7: Finding number of bits of integer.............................. : 28
8: Pre-Alpha CLC Standard Container API Proposal.................. : 27
9: What's the use of anonymous structs?........................... : 24
10: Selection sort and bubble sort................................. : 23
11: constant string doubt.......................................... : 22
12: BIG or little endian........................................... : 22
13: Question about size and memory layout of a Union............... : 21
14: About the typecasting to the LHS............................... : 18
15: Distance between struct members................................ : 18
16: pointer offsetting........................................ ..... : 18
17: AIX C compiler message unexplainable........................... : 16
18: Increment/decrement question................................... : 13
19: pointer plus an integer........................................ : 12
20: Is realloc good form ?......................................... : 12

================================================== ==========================
Top 20 threads by size in KB
================================================== ==========================
1: Bug/Gross InEfficiency in HeathField's fgetline program........ : 226
2: Dev-C++ compiling problem...................................... : 87
3: Goto still considered ful.................................. : 86
4: Selection sort and bubble sort................................. : 80
5: Seg Fault - Can not access memory ?............................ : 73
6: Software memory management reengineering....................... : 71
7: GCC compiler error............................................. : 69
8: How can i read the stack frames of running process?............ : 67
9: Finding number of bits of integer.............................. : 64
10: comp.lang.c Answers (Abridged) to Frequently Asked Questions (F : 60
11: Pre-Alpha CLC Standard Container API Proposal.................. : 57
12: What's the use of anonymous structs?........................... : 55
13: BIG or little endian........................................... : 53
14: Distance between struct members................................ : 50
15: Question about size and memory layout of a Union............... : 49
16: constant string doubt.......................................... : 48
17: pointer offsetting........................................ ..... : 41
18: About the typecasting to the LHS............................... : 40
19: Stats for comp.lang.c (last 7 days)............................ : 34
20: AIX C compiler message unexplainable........................... : 33

================================================== ==========================
Top 10 cross-posted groups
================================================== ==========================
1: comp.lang.c....................................... ............. : 881
2: comp.programming.................................. ............. : 9
3: comp.programming.threads.......................... ............. : 5
4: comp.arch.embedded................................ ............. : 5
5: abg.mampf......................................... ............. : 4
6: comp.lang.c++..................................... ............. : 3
7: comp.std.c........................................ ............. : 3
8: comp.answers...................................... ............. : 1
9: comp.lang.misc.................................... ............. : 1
10: comp.lang.c.moderated............................. ............. : 1

================================================== ==========================
Top 10 User Agents by poster
================================================== ==========================
1: G2/1.0............................................... .......... : 82
2: rn................................................ ............. : 13
3: Unknown........................................... ............. : 9
4: Microsoft Outlook Express...................................... : 9
5: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)......................... : 7
6: Forte Agent............................................. ....... : 6
7: Gnus.............................................. ............. : 5
8: Pan............................................... ............. : 5
9: Mozilla........................................... ............. : 5
10: KNode............................................. ............. : 4

================================================== ==========================
Top 10 User Agents by number of posts
================================================== ==========================
1: G2................................................ ........ : 210 (24%)
2: Mozilla........................................... ........ : 121 (14%)
3: Gnus.............................................. ........ : 70 ( 8%)
4: Outlook Express........................................... : 70 ( 8%)
5: KNode............................................. ........ : 58 ( 7%)
6: Pan............................................... ........ : 54 ( 6%)
7: Forte Agent............................................. .. : 33 ( 4%)
8: Forte Free Agent.......................................... : 30 ( 3%)
9: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows............................. : 28 ( 3%)
10: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16480..................... : 26 ( 3%)

================================================== ==========================
Top 10 time zones
================================================== ==========================
1: -0700.............................................. ............ : 263
2: UTC............................................... ............. : 229
3: +0200............................................. ............. : 121
4: -0400.............................................. ............ : 115
5: +0100............................................. ............. : 101
6: +1000............................................. ............. : 22
7: -0500.............................................. ............ : 12
8: +1300............................................. ............. : 8
9: +0200 (CEST)............................................ ....... : 5
10: -0600.............................................. ............ : 4

================================================== ==========================

CLC stats wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> ================================================== ==============
> Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
> ================================================== ==============
> 1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>........... : 155
> 2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>..................... : 96
> 3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>................ : 66
> 4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)...................... : 60
> 5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>................ : 59
> 6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>............... : 59
> 7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>.................. : 57

(Quote width reduced).

There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer wrote:

> CLC stats wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> ================================================== ==============
>> Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
>> ================================================== ==============
>> 1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>........... : 155
>> 2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>..................... : 96
>> 3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>................ : 66
>> 4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)...................... : 60
>> 5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>................ : 59
>> 6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>............... : 59
>> 7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>.................. : 57
>
> (Quote width reduced).
>
> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.

Perhaps the "script" is counting the headers as well?

CBFalconer said:

<snip>

> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.

My guess: 57KB altogether, spread over 29 articles, i.e. around 2KB per
article.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:

> CBFalconer wrote:
>
>> CLC stats wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> ================================================== ==============
>>> Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
>>> ================================================== ==============
>>> 1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>........... : 155
>>> 2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>..................... : 96
>>> 3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>................ : 66
>>> 4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)...................... : 60
>>> 5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>................ : 59
>>> 6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>............... : 59
>>> 7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>.................. : 57
>>
>> (Quote width reduced).
>>
>> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
>> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
>> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
>
> Perhaps the "script" is counting the headers as well?

Or his multiple signatures?

CBFalconer wrote:
> CLC stats wrote:
> ... snip ...
>> ================================================== ==============
>> Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
>> ================================================== ==============
>> 1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>........... : 155
>> 2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>..................... : 96
>> 3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>................ : 66
>> 4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)...................... : 60
>> 5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>................ : 59
>> 6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>............... : 59
>> 7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>.................. : 57
>
> (Quote width reduced).
>
> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.

29 posts * 2 kb = ?



--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>

"Technical skill is mastery of complexity, while creativity is mastery
of simplicity"

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:40:42 -0400, CBFalconer
<cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:

>CLC stats wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> ================================================== ==============
>> Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
>> ================================================== ==============
>> 1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>........... : 155
>> 2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>..................... : 96
>> 3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>................ : 66
>> 4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)...................... : 60
>> 5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>................ : 59
>> 6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>............... : 59
>> 7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>.................. : 57
>
>(Quote width reduced).
>
>There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
>single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
>so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.

What is wrong is that you are taking the header literally; the
amounts are clearly cumulative totals.


Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die

santosh wrote:
>
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > CLC stats wrote:
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>>> ================================================== ==============
>>> Top 20 posters by article size in Kbytes
>>> ================================================== ==============
>>> 1: Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid>........... : 155
>>> 2: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>..................... : 96
>>> 3: Tor Rustad <tor_rustad@hotmail.com>................ : 66
>>> 4: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)...................... : 60
>>> 5: "Charlie Gordon" <news@chqrlie.org>................ : 59
>>> 6: Peter Pichler <usenet@pichler.co.uk>............... : 59
>>> 7: CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>.................. : 57
>>
>> (Quote width reduced).
>>
>> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
>> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
>> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
>
> Perhaps the "script" is counting the headers as well?

No. The typical total content of headers is in the 1k to 2k
range. It never approaches 57k.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> CBFalconer said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
>> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
>> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
>
> My guess: 57KB altogether, spread over 29 articles, i.e. around 2KB
> per article.

That may be an explanation. Then the section header needs
revision. I think tracking the average message size would be more
reasonable.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > CBFalconer said:
> >
> >> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
> >> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
> >> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
> >
> > My guess: 57KB altogether, spread over 29 articles, i.e. around 2KB
> > per article.
>
> That may be an explanation. Then the section header needs
> revision. I think tracking the average message size would be more
> reasonable.

IMO, it would be most reasonable not to post such statistics. They serve
no real purpose except politics and flamage.

Richard

On Oct 24, 6:28 am, r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > CBFalconer said:
>
> > >> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
> > >> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
> > >> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
>
> > > My guess: 57KB altogether, spread over 29 articles, i.e. around 2KB
> > > per article.
>
> > That may be an explanation. Then the section header needs
> > revision. I think tracking the average message size would be more
> > reasonable.
>
> IMO, it would be most reasonable not to post such statistics. They serve
> no real purpose except politics and flamage.

Kind of reminds me of Mike Lee's list. Sort of nostalgia on my part,
I guess.
I don't see it as a big deal either way.

Richard Bos wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> CBFalconer said:
>>>
>>>> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
>>>> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
>>>> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
>>>
>>> My guess: 57KB altogether, spread over 29 articles, i.e. around 2KB
>>> per article.
>>
>> That may be an explanation. Then the section header needs
>> revision. I think tracking the average message size would be more
>> reasonable.
>
> IMO, it would be most reasonable not to post such statistics. They
> serve no real purpose except politics and flamage.

It's not worth arguing over, so I'll disagree. :-) Such
statistics let newsgroup users compare their usage habits with
others, which is why I objected to the misleading categorization.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:59:07 -0400, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Richard Bos wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> CBFalconer said:
>>>>
>>>>> There is something wrong here. Most of my posts are visible on a
>>>>> single screen, and must be in the order of 2000 to 6000 bytes or
>>>>> so. 57,000 is ridiculous, as are the other higher sizes shown.
>>>>
>>>> My guess: 57KB altogether, spread over 29 articles, i.e. around 2KB
>>>> per article.
>>>
>>> That may be an explanation. Then the section header needs
>>> revision. I think tracking the average message size would be more
>>> reasonable.
>>
>> IMO, it would be most reasonable not to post such statistics. They
>> serve no real purpose except politics and flamage.
>
>It's not worth arguing over, so I'll disagree. :-) Such
>statistics let newsgroup users compare their usage habits with
>others, which is why I objected to the misleading categorization.
>
I suppose that's true, but why would a newsgroup user *want* to
compare their usage habits with others?

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:56:41 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Al Balmer
<albalmer@att.net> wrote:

>I suppose that's true, but why would a newsgroup user *want* to
>compare their usage habits with others?

Its a useful check on whether you've become too obsessive and or
addicted.

For instance if you normally trundled around off the bottom of the top
ten and then suddenly topped the list with 100K in 200 posts in a
week, you are quite probably obesssing about something too much - and
for sure you need to get more of a life....
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> For instance if you normally trundled around off the bottom of the top
> ten and then suddenly topped the list with 100K in 200 posts in a
> week, you are quite probably obesssing about something too much - and
> for sure you need to get more of a life....
>
It's also bad manners to dominate a conversation. I'm not sure if it totally
applies on Usenet, where people can skip past you if they are bored, but the
stats are a good check.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm