«

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:10:00 +0000, "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard,
Inc.]" <> wrote:

>"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
>news: :
>
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:41:55 -0500, "Robert Williams [CertGuard]"
>> <Newsgroups@> wrote:

>> >
>> >BAD Publicity is still Publicity.
>>
>> The majority of posts are from certguard.
>
>Vague. What's your point?

?
What's not to understand?

Certguard are the ones giving the most 'BAD Publicity"

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:32:17 -0500, "Robert Williams [CertGuard]"
<Newsgroups@> wrote:

>"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>
>> The majority of posts are from certguard.
>>
>Ok, I'm bored, I'll bite.
>
>Prove it!

?
Simple math will suffice.
Prior to my last post in reply to Michael there were 10 posts in this
thread. 5 of them posted by Certguard. And 1 posted by a Certguard
'promoter'. So 6 posts from certguard. Which leaves 4 posts by
non-Certguard posters.

Even if we do not count the 1 post from the Certguard promoter as being
from Certguard, we are still left with a 50/50 split of posts from
Certguard and posts from individuals.

There's your proof!

Get it now?

"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
news::

> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:32:17 -0500, "Robert Williams [CertGuard]"
> <Newsgroups@> wrote:
>
> >"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >>
> >> The majority of posts are from certguard.
> >>
> >Ok, I'm bored, I'll bite.
> >
> >Prove it!
>
> ?
> Simple math will suffice.
> Prior to my last post in reply to Michael there were 10 posts in this
> thread. 5 of them posted by Certguard. And 1 posted by a Certguard
> 'promoter'. So 6 posts from certguard. Which leaves 4 posts by
> non-Certguard posters.
>
> Even if we do not count the 1 post from the Certguard promoter as being
> from Certguard, we are still left with a 50/50 split of posts from
> Certguard and posts from individuals.
>
> There's your proof!
>
> Get it now?

You cannot have it both ways. You listed 2 possible scenarios. One where
CertGuard, Inc. posted 6 and one where the posts were even. If you
choose the first scenario, you will notice that a majority, if not all,
were responses to posts concerning uCertify -- not initiated by
CertGuard, Inc.. In your second scenario (and btw, the correct one), we
are even in posts. Meaning that your original claim in "the majority of
posts are from certguard" is false. Either way, I am not sure anyone
cares. Thanks for playing anyway.

--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com

> Either way, I am not sure anyone cares.

I know I don't.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:57:34 +0000, "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard,
Inc.]" <> wrote:

>In your second scenario (and btw, the correct one), we
>are even in posts. Meaning that your original claim in "the majority of
>posts are from certguard" is false. Either way, I am not sure anyone
>cares. Thanks for playing anyway.

Errr, No. Sorry but you lose.
50/50 split - individual(s)/certguard
Certguard are the majority here no matter how you try and 'spin' it.

Before I posted to the thread there were 3 posts from Certguard and 4
from individuals, 2 of which were certguard 'promoters'.
So lets call this a 3:2:2 split with Certguard again posting the most.

I would not even have posted to this thread if it were not a Certguard
comment about 'publicity', when certguard are the masters of that
(self-publicity, bordering on span at that).

"kpg*" <> wrote in message
news:Xns99A3A3C62D775ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248. 16:

> > Either way, I am not sure anyone cares.
>
> I know I don't.

And that brother is all that matters to me!

K33p1n' i7 r3@l 4 kpg,
--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:05:15 -0700, "kpg*" <> wrote:

>> Either way, I am not sure anyone cares.
>
>I know I don't.

Me neither.

"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
news::

> I would not even have posted to this thread if it were not a Certguard
> comment about 'publicity', when certguard are the masters of that
> (self-publicity, bordering on span at that).

Whew. As long as we are "bordering on span" -- whatever that is.

BTW: Self-publicity is called MARKETING. However, I would like to think
of it as EDUCATING -- as I am sure a majority of people visiting this
group would agree with.
--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com

"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
news::

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:05:15 -0700, "kpg*" <> wrote:
>
> >> Either way, I am not sure anyone cares.
> >
> >I know I don't.
>
> Me neither.

Then please, HELP or MOVE ON.
--
Michael D. Alligood,
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:48:02 +0000, "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard,
Inc.]" <> wrote:

>"PAJ" <MBLOSSOMpaj-> wrote in message
>news: :
>
>> I would not even have posted to this thread if it were not a Certguard
>> comment about 'publicity', when certguard are the masters of that
>> (self-publicity, bordering on span at that).
>
>Whew. As long as we are "bordering on span" -- whatever that is.
>

Yawn. A typo. Obvious to all but the very dumb.