From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 11390f,be6b7e036aa9236c
X-Google-Attributes: gid11390f,public
X-Google-Thread: 10261c,68666e29d0425009
X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,be6b7e036aa9236c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,be6b7e036aa9236c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 1164ba,be6b7e036aa9236c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1164ba,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,68666e29d0425009
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,be6b7e036aa9236c
X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,be6b7e036aa9236c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
From: john@polo.demon.co.uk (John Winters)
Subject: Re: Results of my test: Re: Friday 13th, try it yourself
Date: 1996/09/28
Message-ID: <52imn4$d79@polo.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 185804384
x-nntp-posting-host: polo.demon.co.uk
references: <52hb32$ns5@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
 <Pine.SOL.3.91.960927175816.8469B-100000@serv1.jump.net>
followup-to: dev.null
organization: A Red Hat Commercial Linux Site
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.apl,comp.lang.basic,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.pascal.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk
Date: 1996-09-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960927175816.8469B-100000@serv1.jump.net>,
Lee Crites  <adonai@jump.net> wrote:
>> >However, the results are no different.  Basically, the 13th falls 
>> >uniformily across each day of the week.
>> >
>> >       Sun found  687 times
>> >       Mon found  685 times
>> >       Tue found  685 times
>> >       Wed found  687 times
>> >       Thu found  684 times
>> >       Fri found  688 times
>> >       Sat found  684 times
>> >     error found    0 times
>> 
>> Something is really wrong here.  The results show the opposite of the
>> poster's conclusions.  No?
>
>No.

Yes.

>
>It's all fine and good to try to be precise.  But there comes a time when
>overprecision is uncalled for.

Presumably your definition of "overprecision" is "pointing out that
I'm wrong".  You contradicted a perfectly correct statement, now you
try to salve your ego by saying you weren't very wrong.  The original
statement was "only just" correct.

>Sorry guys, but I'd forgotten how truly anal some of these discussions can
>become. 

Ah.  New definition of "anal" too.  (Why is anal becoming such a
fashionable insult these days?)  Every time anyone makes him or herself
look a fool on a newgroup, he/she ends up calling the opposition "anal".

Pathetic.

John

-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.