Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Monthly Report for April '10

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Whether due in part to my gloomy prediction on the 27th or not, I don t know, but there was a flurry of activity the last three days of the month that turned
    Message 1 of 1 , May 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Whether due in part to my gloomy prediction on the 27th or not,
      I don't know, but there was a flurry of activity the last three days
      of the month that turned it from what was looking like a poor
      month into a good one. Both Rick and Judy sent in messages
      at a crucial point, and the traffic mushroomed from there. The
      indicators I've been following each month look like this:

      (1) Goal of 45 messages per month: We hit 49 (Yahoogroups
      shows 50, but I deleted a dupe from Jack Kilmon).

      (2) Comparison with monthly average: The adjusted 7-year
      average for April is 53, which is at the top of the monthly
      averages. I'm satisfied that we even came close to it.

      (3) Member-participation: The goal here is at least two-thirds
      from members other than myself. For April, it was 69.4%, so
      I'm pleased with that.

      As to the number of contributors, there was a goodly number
      in April - 8 other than myself. The major players were Rick H.
      (12 messages), Judy R. (10), and Bob S. (5). Paterson Brown
      and Rick V. contributed two each (the majority of Rick V's many
      messages having arrived early this month rather than the end of
      last). In addition, there were single postings by Jordan Stratford,
      Ron McCann, and Jack Kilmon. Heartfelt thanks to all. Remember
      that we depend on you. I hope and believe that we give you some
      value in return for your time and effort.

      There are two procedural matters I feel the need to address:

      (1) Posters are urged in the strongest terms to DELETE from
      their own message the one(s) to which they're responding! Or
      copy just the minimum relevant portion(s) at the relevant spot(s).
      Uncareful disregard of posting rules is resulting in rampant clutter,
      up with which we will not put (to quote a famous line).

      (2) The current probability discussions seem to me to have
      been both unsatisfactory (in terms of clarity and conciseness)
      and unnecessary. I haven't consulted with the moderators on
      this yet, but it may come to that, if the participants don't find a
      way to curtail the excessive technical verbiage. Fair warning.

      M.Grondin
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.