> In general, you're better off assuming you know nothing because quite > often anecdotal evidence misses *critical* pieces of information. > Even if you take it with a handful of salt, it may be pointing you in > *completely* the wrong direction - better to make NO conclusion than > the WRONG conclusion. That's why I said it has to be factored in with a lot of intelligence and in the context of the "real" data. See my longer elaboration to Esat. Rich
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]