Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)
From: Bob Dawson (bdawson_at_idtdna.com)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Previous message: Bob Dawson: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- In reply to: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Next in thread: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Reply: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:54:53 -0600
"Dennis Landi" wrote
> This is precisely why polling the users of the delphi NGs make such an
> excellent sample.
Absolute non-sequitor. This forum is not demographically mapped in any way.
If it is, tell me the proportional weightings of the segments we each fall
into.
> an excellent sample for delphi questions.
They are a sample of uncertain relevance to anything, representative
_without further analysis_ of no more than themselves.
> Now, let me give you a legitimately bogus counter example. We have Nick
> Hodge constantly countering with *his* experiences with *his* trainees.
IF
> the intent was to capture a sample of NEOPHYTES who would actually need
> training from Nick, then you've got a great sample for whatever *delphi*
> question you wanted to ask.
The assertion that Nick's pupils are all neophytes is as ungrounded as the
assertion that all forum members are malcontents. :-)
bobD
- Next message: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Previous message: Bob Dawson: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- In reply to: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Next in thread: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Reply: Dennis Landi: "Re: Google (not Borland) knows all ;)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
