CO Frequent Flyer Miles Redemption stat
Reef Fish
was immediately taken aback by the headline "From January through
June 2005, members redeemed 866,145 travel rewards".
Thinking those were Frequent Flyer MILES, my first impression was
that's IMPOSSIBLE, because I had personally redeemed 335,000 CO
FFMs during that period. :-)
It was only 2nd thought that the redeemed MILES couldn't have
odd numbers like 145 that I realized they were "rewards", so
that my 335,000 FFMs counted toward only 7 (SEVEN) of those
866,145 rewards.
The text under the headline started with,
"This number speaks volumes about how rewarding OnePass
membership is. <...>"
I concur.
-- Bob.
Mike
<Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd be leary of a stastic without documentation. Is this the number
of awards for round trip tickets? Number of segment seats? (not sure
if that is the correct terminology, but 1 round trip with a connection
in each direction has 4 segment seats) Are miles used for upgrades
considered an award? When partners get an award seat on Continental,
is that considered an award?
I guess, the point is what do they consider a reward? Does my award
using Delta miles with several Delta flights and one Continental
flight carry the same weight in the total as someone using OnePass
miles to book an award from Guam to Copenhagen with multiple segments
on Continental?
Reef Fish
Mike wrote:
> On 12 Oct 2005 08:02:42 -0700, "Reef Fish"
> <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >WHen I received my October issue of INSights from OnePass of CO, I
> >was immediately taken aback by the headline "From January through
> >June 2005, members redeemed 866,145 travel rewards".
> >
> >Thinking those were Frequent Flyer MILES, my first impression was
> >that's IMPOSSIBLE, because I had personally redeemed 335,000 CO
> >FFMs during that period. :-)
> >
> >It was only 2nd thought that the redeemed MILES couldn't have
> >odd numbers like 145 that I realized they were "rewards", so
> >that my 335,000 FFMs counted toward only 7 (SEVEN) of those
> >866,145 rewards.
> >
> >The text under the headline started with,
> >
> >"This number speaks volumes about how rewarding OnePass
> >membership is. <...>"
> >
> >I concur.
> >
> >-- Bob.
>
> I'd be leary of a stastic without documentation. Is this the number
> of awards for round trip tickets? Number of segment seats? (not sure
> if that is the correct terminology, but 1 round trip with a connection
> in each direction has 4 segment seats) Are miles used for upgrades
> considered an award? When partners get an award seat on Continental,
> is that considered an award?
All good questions. I would say ALL such claims are considered
an award claim, EXCEPT you cannot count a segment of a ticket,
roundtrip or not, as a separate claim, because it would cost your
a huge bundle of FFMs to book a roundtrip one segment at a time.
So, if a claim consists of several segments of a continuing flight,
it would count as ONE award.
Of course upgrades (with FF miles) are counted as a claim for
an award.
I am pretty sure, but not 100% sure, that complimentary upgrades
or partner gets an award seat, would be counted in the award claim
total, because no CO FF miles are used in those transactions. In
fact, my (automatic) complimentary upgrade to First Class (confirmed
up to 5 days before flight date) cannot even be considered a "claim"
because I don't even have to ASK for it. It's automatically GIVEN
to me when First Class seats are available.
> I guess, the point is what do they consider a reward? Does my award
> using Delta miles with several Delta flights and one Continental
> flight carry the same weight in the total as someone using OnePass
> miles to book an award from Guam to Copenhagen with multiple segments
> on Continental?
If you have to book a single ticket, then it doesn't matter if it's
18,000 miles roundtrip to Hong Kong, or 4 segments to fly 1,000 miles,
it's ONE reward claim.
One can also claim a reward for a magazine subscription that's worth
practically NOTHING, but that still counts as ONE reward.
In short, don't worry yourself sick counting how big the teeth
are in the Gift Horse's mouth! :-)
It bothers me not one bit that my 335,000 FFM claims count only
as SEVEN (rdtp tickets) whereas it wouldn't take a geinus to see
how many magazine subscription rewards one can get with that
many FFMs. :)
-- Bob.
Mike
<Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob, I understand exactly what you are saying. However, the reason I
posed those questions, was to point out that CO is tooting thier own
horn. However, without more information, the provided statistic is
useless. If there were 866,138 magazine subscriptions and your 7
flights redeemeed, I would say that the program is terrible. However,
if there were 866,200 requests for award travel, and 866,145 were
redeemed, then it would likely be the best FF program ever.
Obviously, the true value lies somewhere in the middle, but without
more information the simple 866,145 value is useless.
This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
last year. By itself, that stastic is useless. That number has a
completely different meaning if I live in Westfield WI, than if I live
in New York, NY.
Reef Fish
Undoubtedly! No other airline is going to toot CO's horn, is there?
In fact, more airlines are blowing hot air even without a horn. :-)
> However, without more information, the provided statistic is useless.
Granted the information is not precies and may have a large variance
in whatever unit you think is indicative of the true measure, but
it's hardly "useless". I am a professional statistician. I
question such reports all the time myself, but in the end you
draw your own conclusion, based on some best-worst case scenarios
as well as the law of averages.
The same way one draws conclusions on the value of a FFM. The
nominal value of $20 per 1000 FFM is an over-estimate at times,
under-estimate at times, but averages out about right. Not only
that, it averaged out MUCH better than $20 per 1,000 FFM for
MY use, because if the equivalent $ cost is less than that, I
just don't use the FFM for it.
> If there were 866,138 magazine subscriptions and your 7
> flights redeemeed, I would say that the program is terrible.
That's known as an event with probability zero. :-) Other
scenarios may have probabilities arbitrarily close to zero.
> However,
> if there were 866,200 requests for award travel, and 866,145 were
> redeemed, then it would likely be the best FF program ever.
CO toots that horn too, about their Best FF Program voted by
Freddie so many years in a row and nine years out of 10 or something
like that, until the last coule of years.
> Obviously, the true value lies somewhere in the middle, but without
> more information the simple 866,145 value is useless.
You are not only preaching to the wrong choir, you are in the
wrong CHURCH! :-)
Wiat is YOUR statistical qualification for anyone to put any
credibility on YOUR argumemnt, as opposed to mine or someone
else's own interpretation of the same figures? Do I say your
opinion is "useless"? No. Just anti-statistical and
speculative without any factual substantiation.
> This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
> last year. By itself, that stastic is useless.
Why so? That's 50 more murders than those cities that had NO murder.
That's pretty useful information to me, or to anyone who has any
sense about statistics and numbers.
BTW, the word is "statistics", not "stastic" -- I didn't mention
it the first time you spelled it that way, but you repeated
misspelling of that "keyword" is a pretty good indication of
your LACK of credibility in any statistical matters.
I usually don't flash any badgets (about once every 5,000 posts
of mine). When I tried a Google search for
'Statistics Ph.D. (Yale 1970) and Elected Fellow of the ASA (1984)'
Google found only two hits in my (estimated) 100,000 posts, but
I am sure I've cited those items at least a couple dozen times
when my statistics credentials may be relevant on credibility.
> That number has a
> completely different meaning if I live in Westfield WI, than if I live
> in New York, NY.
You're only harping at one aspect of the absence of "per capita"
in the statistical number. But you forget that 50 murders are
50 more than zero murder, regardless where which city or state
those numbers come from.
-- Bob.
Mike
<Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Mike wrote:
>> On 13 Oct 2005 08:58:37 -0700, "Reef Fish"
>> <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Mike wrote:
>> >> On 12 Oct 2005 08:02:42 -0700, "Reef Fish"
>> >> <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >WHen I received my October issue of INSights from OnePass of CO, I
>> >> >was immediately taken aback by the headline "From January through
>> >> >June 2005, members redeemed 866,145 travel rewards".
>> >> >
>> >> >Thinking those were Frequent Flyer MILES, my first impression was
>> >> >that's IMPOSSIBLE, because I had personally redeemed 335,000 CO
>> >> >FFMs during that period. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >It was only 2nd thought that the redeemed MILES couldn't have
>> >> >odd numbers like 145 that I realized they were "rewards", so
>> >> >that my 335,000 FFMs counted toward only 7 (SEVEN) of those
>> >> >866,145 rewards.
>> >> >
>> >> >The text under the headline started with,
>> >> >
>> >> >"This number speaks volumes about how rewarding OnePass
>> >> >membership is. <...>"
>> >> >
>> >> >I concur.
>> >> >
>> >> >-- Bob.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be leary of a statistic without documentation. Is this the number
Agreed. However, from the information they provide, there is no way
to determine if the horn tootong by CO in this instance is justified.
>> However, without more information, the provided statistic is useless.
>
>Granted the information is not precies and may have a large variance
>in whatever unit you think is indicative of the true measure, but
>it's hardly "useless". I am a professional statistician. I
>question such reports all the time myself, but in the end you
>draw your own conclusion, based on some best-worst case scenarios
>as well as the law of averages.
>
Did you mean that the information is not precise? Sorry, I had to say
that since you later pick on my typing skills. :-)
Since you are a professional stastician, you should know that more
useful conclusions can be drawn from samples with a very small
variance. What conclusions did you draw from CO's statement?
>The same way one draws conclusions on the value of a FFM. The
>nominal value of $20 per 1000 FFM is an over-estimate at times,
>under-estimate at times, but averages out about right. Not only
>that, it averaged out MUCH better than $20 per 1,000 FFM for
>MY use, because if the equivalent $ cost is less than that, I
>just don't use the FFM for it.
>
There have been may discussions about the value of FF miles. My last
award was for 2 transatlantic flights on AF in F for 100000 miles
each. To purchase the flights would be over $10,000. That puts the
hard value at over $100 per 1000 miles for that award. However, I
would never pay $10,000. Therefore, is it really justifiable that I
say I got $100 per1000 miles of value?
>> If there were 866,138 magazine subscriptions and your 7
>> flights redeemeed, I would say that the program is terrible.
>
>That's known as an event with probability zero. :-) Other
>scenarios may have probabilities arbitrarily close to zero.
>
Yes, it is very unlikely that yours were the only reward flights
redeemed, but without more information, we will never know the true
values.
>> However,
>> if there were 866,200 requests for award travel, and 866,145 were
>> redeemed, then it would likely be the best FF program ever.
>
>CO toots that horn too, about their Best FF Program voted by
>Freddie so many years in a row and nine years out of 10 or something
>like that, until the last coule of years.
The Freddie Awards are based on voting of people's opinions. In
actuality, Inside Flyer magazine did a study of FF award availability
and found out that (at the time of the study) DL was the most generous
in terms of making awards available.
>
>> Obviously, the true value lies somewhere in the middle, but without
>> more information the simple 866,145 value is useless.
>
>You are not only preaching to the wrong choir, you are in the
>wrong CHURCH! :-)
>
>Wiat is YOUR statistical qualification for anyone to put any
>credibility on YOUR argumemnt, as opposed to mine or someone
>else's own interpretation of the same figures? Do I say your
>opinion is "useless"? No. Just anti-statistical and
>speculative without any factual substantiation.
>
My statistical qualification is a healthy suspicion of values without
any qualifying reference or other values of comparison, and common
sense. I never said that your opinion was useless. I am not
anti-statistical. My point was that one would have to speculate on
the true meaning of the value provided by CO since they provide no
other information.
>
>> This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
>> last year. By itself, that stastic is useless.
>
>Why so? That's 50 more murders than those cities that had NO murder.
>That's pretty useful information to me, or to anyone who has any
>sense about statistics and numbers.
But pretty useless if you choose to move to the city with 0 murders
because you want to live in a safe area, and then find out the the
city is very small and entirely surrounded by other cities with very
high murder numbers.
>
>BTW, the word is "statistics", not "stastic" -- I didn't mention
>it the first time you spelled it that way, but you repeated
>misspelling of that "keyword" is a pretty good indication of
>your LACK of credibility in any statistical matters.
>
No, it shows my lack of typing skills.
>I usually don't flash any badgets (about once every 5,000 posts
>of mine). When I tried a Google search for
>
>'Statistics Ph.D. (Yale 1970) and Elected Fellow of the ASA (1984)'
>
>Google found only two hits in my (estimated) 100,000 posts, but
>I am sure I've cited those items at least a couple dozen times
>when my statistics credentials may be relevant on credibility.
I never questioned your credibility. I am simply questioning CO's
credibility with their statement that a particular number of rewards
shows that OnePass membership is rewarding.
>
>> That number has a
>> completely different meaning if I live in Westfield WI, than if I live
>> in New York, NY.
>
>You're only harping at one aspect of the absence of "per capita"
>in the statistical number. But you forget that 50 murders are
>50 more than zero murder, regardless where which city or state
>those numbers come from.
You seem to ignore the fact that 50 murders in a city with 1000
residents means something much different than 50 murders in a city
with 10,000,000 residents. Therefore, by simply stating that there
are 50 murders last year in a particular city, gives very little
useful information.
FWIW, the city in which I reside had 4 murders last year. What can
you determine from that statistic?
>
>-- Bob.
Bob, my whole point of my original response was that CO says "This
number speaks volumes about how rewarding OnePass membership is..."
However, that number by itself really says very little about how
rewarding OnePass Membership is much less volumes.
Bob, I have read many of your posts over time, and have respected your
statements and opinions in the past. Please don't take my statements
as a knock on statistics or you personally. Nothing I have ever
stated was intended to be that way. I just tend to question
statistics that are provided by large corporations and the government
when they provide little supporting information.
Mike
wrote:
I decided to follow up with CO to try and get more information. I was
pleasantly surprised to receive an e-mail answer from CO within 6
hours. Kudos to CO for a quick response. Here is what I found out:
Q1. Are mileage upgrades considered a reward?
Any mileage deduct reward (travel or upgrades) is considered reward
travel.
Q2. Is each segment of a multi-segment award ticket considered a
reward?
The entire reservation is considered one reward, not the individual
flights flown within the reservation.
Q3. Are flights booked by partners on Continental considered a
reward?
Reward travel booked by partner airlines through their frequent flyer
programs (no OnePass miles deducted) are not considered reward travel
through OnePass.
Q4. Are flights booked by OnePass members on partner flights
considered a reward?
OnePass reward travel booked through OnePass on partner airlines is
considered reward travel.
Q5. Are OnePass miles used for magazine subscriptions considered a
reward?
Q6. Are OnePass miles used for merchandise considered an award?
Q7. When someone wins the online OnePass miles auction, is that
considered a reward?
OnePass miles used for magazine subscriptions, merchandise, and online
OnePass auctions are not.
If there are any further questions, the information can be found
on-line at continental.com under Frequent Flyer.
Lloyd Wassenich
OnePass Service Center
*****************************
For OnePass program information, please visit www.continental.com and
click on the “Frequent Flyer” tab at the top of the page. You may
contact the OnePass Service Center at one...@coair.com or
713-952-1630, prompt #4, 6:30am – 8:00pm Central Time Monday-Friday.
If you are calling from outside the U.S. or Canada, a list of local
phone numbers may be found on our website under the “Contact Us”
section.
Reef Fish
CO's statistic about the number of FF rewards redeemed in the first
six months of 2005, which began with Mike's question, which I
immediately acknowledged as "All good questions", ... , and then
the statistical substance deteriorated as quickly as the airline
industry was diving into bankrupcies.
Mike wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2005 15:05:08 -0700, "Reef Fish"
> <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I'd be leary of a statistic without documentation. Is this the number
> >> >> of awards for round trip tickets?
Mike, you were supposed to QUOTE yourself. This was NOT what you
posted on Oct 12, it was:
> I'd be leary of a stastic without documentation. Is this the number
> of awards for round trip tickets?
If you wanted to retroactively correct the misspelling of a KEYWORD
in the discussion of "statistics", you could have done so this way:
> I'd be leary of a stastic <sic> without documentation. Is this
> the number of awards for round trip tickets?
On Oct 13, you did it again,
> This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
> last year. By itself, that stastic is useless.
< snip >
Folks in newsgroups are fond of being Spelling Cops, especially when
they run out of substance to say or rebutt in a disagreement.
So, they pick on OBVIOUS typos, which I call "inconsequential typos"
because those careless mistakes or simply typing mistakes by
hitting adjacent keys on the keyboard, that are unlikely to mislead
anyone simply because of the typo.
These Spelling Cops have acquired such bad reputations on the
substance of their discussions that they are generally frowned upon,
and even flamed by me, when they tried their hand on MY typos. :-)
I've been on record, NUMEROUS times, in ngs, expressing my disgust
and disdain at "Spelling Cops".
When I have called other posters "mental midgets" a thousand times,
because there are about that many in ngs :-), it should be obvious
when I carelessly typed "mentle midget" that it was a TYPO.
Actually this was a in "case study" in which I wrote,
RF> Since 1981, in ALL newsgroups, searching with only "reef fish" as
RF> author and "mentle midget" as keyword, google found EXACTLY ONE
RF> THREAD (this one).
RF> I then chance the keyword to "mental midget" by "reef fish",
RF> google quickly returned 69 hits (threads).
I am a FREQUENT typo maker -- I correct myself when the typo is not
obvious; otherwise, I leave it to the Spelling Cops (who seem to be
diminishing in numbers to be almost EXTINCT :-)), on MY posts anyway
... until some newbie stepped in.
If FF miles are given to FF typos, I could fly free forever! :-)
Just for my own curiosity to see how often I have made that typo,
I did a google search and found it exactly ONCE (the one you picked),
whereas I used "precise" in 58 threads (out of my own estimated
100,000 posts over the years in usenet). :-)
So, Mike, my typo "precies" for "precise" can be classified as
a RARE, but OBVIOUS, typo.
A COMMON typo of mine is "it's" for "its" where as that is a common
misspelling error by others.
What's the difference? Well, in some instances, MISSPELLINGS
are an indication of a poster's poor education, "your" for "you're",
"loose" for "lose", or vice versa.
Other times, it's an indication of IGNORANCE on certain subject
matters.
"Stactics" for "statistics" is such an example. It's inconceibable
that anyone vaguely acquainted with the subject of statistics,
could misspell it as "stactic", or that it is a typo missing
three letters but had an extraneous "c".
It's second only to one Mental Midget who found two typos if mine
in one week and frivolous attacked my SPELLING -- but he
misspelled "misspell" and was oblivious to the irony of it all. :-)
Now comes Mike's nitpick to my serious response to his "useless"
characterization of the CO reported number.
> >Granted the information is not precies and may have a large variance
> >in whatever unit you think is indicative of the true measure, but
> >it's hardly "useless". I am a professional statistician. I
> >question such reports all the time myself, but in the end you
> >draw your own conclusion, based on some best-worst case scenarios
> >as well as the law of averages.
> >
> Did you mean that the information is not precise? Sorry, I had to say
> that since you later pick on my typing skills. :-)
You should have let that one go, Mike. :-) The "precies" was
an OBVIOUS typo of transposition for too-rapid typing. See above)
But yours was no "inconsequential typo".
RF> BTW, the word is "statistics", not "stastic" -- I didn't mention
RF> it the first time you spelled it that way, but you <sic> repeated
RF> misspelling of that "keyword" is a pretty good indication of
RF> your LACK of credibility in any statistical matters.
That was an OBVIOUS misspelling the first time (which I didn't
mention). It was unmistakable the second time, and I mentioned
it only because of the SUBSTANCE of statistical interpretation,
in which it's a reflection of a discussant's unfamiliarity with
the subject, by repearedly misspelling a KEYWORD, "statistics"
into something that could hardly be a TYPO, "stastic".
In the VERY NEXT sentence after nitpicking my "precies" typo,
>
> Since you are a professional stastician,
You bet! This time you left out only THREE letters, in your
"typo" eh? :-) It really was your SAME misspelling "stactic"
with one letter corrected, and with "ian" added, rather than
"statistic" with "ian" added.
< more big snips on Mike's statistics lecture >
which prompted me to remark:
> >You are not only preaching to the wrong choir, you are in the
> >wrong CHURCH! :-)
> >Wiat is YOUR statistical qualification for anyone to put any
> >credibility on YOUR argumemnt,
Kudos on Mike for NOT picking on my typo "Wiat". :-)
> >> This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
> >> last year. By itself, that stastic is useless.
> >
> >Why so? That's 50 more murders than those cities that had NO murder.
> >That's pretty useful information to me, or to anyone who has any
> >sense about statistics and numbers.
>
> But pretty useless if you choose to move to the city with 0 murders
> because you want to live in a safe area, and then find out the the
> city is very small and entirely surrounded by other cities with very
> high murder numbers.
That's the kind of statement that is vacuous in statistical substance
to a statistician,
> >BTW, the word is "statistics", not "stastic" -- I didn't mention
> >it the first time you spelled it that way, but you repeated
> >misspelling of that "keyword" is a pretty good indication of
> >your LACK of credibility in any statistical matters.
> >
> No, it shows my lack of typing skills.
No, as I had shown above. You were even so clever as to EDIT
your own misspelling of "stastic" for "statistics" in your quote
of yourself. Unfortunately, google had the ORIGINAL.
> >> That number has a
> >> completely different meaning if I live in Westfield WI, than if I live
> >> in New York, NY.
> >
> >You're only harping at one aspect of the absence of "per capita"
> >in the statistical number. But you forget that 50 murders are
> >50 more than zero murder, regardless where which city or state
> >those numbers come from.
>
> You seem to ignore the fact that 50 murders in a city with 1000
> residents means something much different than 50 murders in a city
> with 10,000,000 residents.
No, you are the one who overlooked that was exactly what I meant
about you "harping at one aspect of the absence of 'per capita'",
and that regardless of the per capita aspect of the number, 50
murders is 50 more than ZERO murder is a very meaningful statistic.
> Bob, I have read many of your posts over time, and have respected your
> statements and opinions in the past. Please don't take my statements
> as a knock on statistics or you personally. Nothing I have ever
> stated was intended to be that way. I just tend to question
> statistics that are provided by large corporations and the government
> when they provide little supporting information.
I had recognized and acknowledged the validity of your questions from
the very beginning, in my very first sentence:
RF> All good questions.
But then when your BS started piling up, and made this statement,
> However, without more information, the provided statistic is useless.
I patiently explained that I ask those questions all the time
myself, but I don't jump to BS conclusions such as Mike's.
RF> Granted the information is not precies and may have a large
variance
RF> in whatever unit you think is indicative of the true measure, but
RF> it's hardly "useless". I am a professional statistician. I
RF> question such reports all the time myself, but in the end you
RF> draw your own conclusion, based on some best-worst case scenarios
RF> as well as the law of averages.
That was when Mike turned "Spelling Cop" while cleverly tried to
disguise his own atrocious misspelling "stactic" as a typo.
Yes, Virginia, there IS a big difference between a KEY misspelling
and an inconsequential typo. :-)
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
a Spelling Cop wan't an intentional bait. It was actually a hybrid
of a misspelling and a typo! :-)
"treatese" in 4 threads; "treatise" in 13 threads, according to
Google.
I suppose the intended meaning of "treatese" in the subject was clear,
but I think it was my Freudian slip for wanting to call it "treatease".
Perhaps the post did have some redeeming value on the subject, at least
for Spelling Cops.
James Robinson
This has to be a test to see who can find the most spelling errors. Let me know if I
found all of them.
First, it should be "treatise". That's sneaky putting one in the subject line where
it might be overlooked. That's one.
> This post was motivated by the discussion within the thread of
> CO's statistic about the number of FF rewards redeemed in the first
> six months of 2005, which began with Mike's question, which I
> immediately acknowledged as "All good questions", ... , and then
> the statistical substance deteriorated as quickly as the airline
> industry was diving into bankrupcies.
Whew, that's one long, complicated sentence. I know we aren't looking at grammar, so
I'll restrict myself to "bankruptcies". Pretty shrewd having it at the end of the
paragraph where people's attention might have wandered. That's two.
> Mike wrote:
>> "Reef Fish" wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I'd be leary of a statistic without documentation. Is this the
>> >> >> number of awards for round trip tickets?
>
> Mike, you were supposed to QUOTE yourself. This was NOT what you
> posted on Oct 12, it was:
>
>> I'd be leary of a stastic without documentation. Is this the number
>> of awards for round trip tickets?
>
> If you wanted to retroactively correct the misspelling of a KEYWORD
> in the discussion of "statistics", you could have done so this way:
>
>> I'd be leary of a stastic <sic> without documentation. Is this
>> the number of awards for round trip tickets?
Hmm. Do missed misspellings in someone else's post count? You draw people's
attention to "statistics", likely to pull their gaze away from "leery". I think I'll
count it. That's three.
> On Oct 13, you did it again,
>
>> This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
>> last year. By itself, that stastic is useless.
"Similar" is also in another person's post. That's four.
> < snip >
>
> Folks in newsgroups are fond of being Spelling Cops, especially when
> they run out of substance to say or rebutt in a disagreement.
"Rebut". That's five. (...and no rebuttal to lack of substance.)
<Snip>
> "Stactics" for "statistics" is such an example. It's inconceibable
> that anyone vaguely acquainted with the subject of statistics,
> could misspell it as "stactic", or that it is a typo missing
> three letters but had an extraneous "c".
"Inconcievable". That's six.
> Yes, Virginia, there IS a big difference between a KEY misspelling
> and an inconsequential typo. :-)
Well, I couldn't find any more, and it was truly inconsequential. Did I pass the
test?
James Robinson
>> "Stactics" for "statistics" is such an example. It's inconceibable
>> that anyone vaguely acquainted with the subject of statistics,
>> could misspell it as "stactic", or that it is a typo missing
>> three letters but had an extraneous "c".
>
> "Inconcievable". That's six.
>
>> Yes, Virginia, there IS a big difference between a KEY misspelling
>> and an inconsequential typo. :-)
Hey look. I can't even spell inconceivable. Was that a key misspelling,
or a "key" error, as in a typo?
Reef Fish
James Robinson wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This has to be a test to see who can find the most spelling errors. Let me know if I
> found all of them.
>
> First, it should be "treatise". That's sneaky putting one in the subject line where
> it might be overlooked. That's one.
Actually it wasn't one, as I explained and corrected it (3:33 pm)
before your present post (3:41 pm). :-) You were probably busy
counting my typos when that post of my appeared.
>
> > This post was motivated by the discussion within the thread of
> > CO's statistic about the number of FF rewards redeemed in the first
> > six months of 2005, which began with Mike's question, which I
> > immediately acknowledged as "All good questions", ... , and then
> > the statistical substance deteriorated as quickly as the airline
> > industry was diving into bankrupcies.
>
> Whew, that's one long, complicated sentence. I know we aren't looking at grammar, so
> I'll restrict myself to "bankruptcies". Pretty shrewd having it at the end of the
> paragraph where people's attention might have wandered. That's two.
Guilty as charged on the grammar. "bankrupcies" was definitely a typo.
>
> > Mike wrote:
> >> "Reef Fish" wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> I'd be leary of a statistic without documentation. Is this the
> >> >> >> number of awards for round trip tickets?
> >
> > Mike, you were supposed to QUOTE yourself. This was NOT what you
> > posted on Oct 12, it was:
> >
> >> I'd be leary of a stastic without documentation. Is this the number
> >> of awards for round trip tickets?
> >
> > If you wanted to retroactively correct the misspelling of a KEYWORD
> > in the discussion of "statistics", you could have done so this way:
> >
> >> I'd be leary of a stastic <sic> without documentation. Is this
> >> the number of awards for round trip tickets?
>
> Hmm. Do missed misspellings in someone else's post count? You draw people's
> attention to "statistics", likely to pull their gaze away from "leery". I think I'll
> count it. That's three.
This one doesn't count! It was CLEAR he wasn't talking about Timothy
Leary.
It was a case that I knowingly overlooked ALL typos, as I did his
misspelling of "statistics" as "stactic" THAT time -- not a chance
in a million years I could have not noticed it. :-)
>
> > On Oct 13, you did it again,
> >
> >> This is similiar to me saying that there were 50 murders in my city
> >> last year. By itself, that stastic is useless.
>
> "Similar" is also in another person's post. That's four.
That was Mike's use of "similar". More ungrammatical than
typographical.
>
> > < snip >
> >
> > Folks in newsgroups are fond of being Spelling Cops, especially when
> > they run out of substance to say or rebutt in a disagreement.
>
> "Rebut". That's five. (...and no rebuttal to lack of substance.)
Guilty as charged! I had company with 32,500 others in Google web
count,
on "rebutt", obviously the bad influence of former Agricultural
Secretary Earl Butts.
>
> <Snip>
>
> > "Stactics" for "statistics" is such an example. It's inconceibable
> > that anyone vaguely acquainted with the subject of statistics,
> > could misspell it as "stactic", or that it is a typo missing
> > three letters but had an extraneous "c".
>
> "Inconcievable". That's six.
That was clearly a careless transposition caused by my low-flying
fingers in too-rapid typing. :-)
"inconcievable" used ONCE in 100,000 posts by Reef Fish.
James, congratulations on a rare find.
>
> > Yes, Virginia, there IS a big difference between a KEY misspelling
> > and an inconsequential typo. :-)
>
> Well, I couldn't find any more, and it was truly inconsequential. Did I pass the
> test?
With frying coleurs!
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
I OVERLOOKED the extraneus "i" in Mike's use of "similiar". On my
screen font, the "li" was almost indistinquishable from "l", so
I thought James was picking on the use of "similar" for some other
words such as "analogous". :-)
>
> >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > Folks in newsgroups are fond of being Spelling Cops, especially when
> > > they run out of substance to say or rebutt in a disagreement.
> >
> > "Rebut". That's five. (...and no rebuttal to lack of substance.)
>
> Guilty as charged! I had company with 32,500 others in Google web
> count,
> on "rebutt", obviously the bad influence of former Agricultural
> Secretary Earl Butts.
> >
> > <Snip>
> >
> > > "Stactics" for "statistics" is such an example. It's inconceibable
> > > that anyone vaguely acquainted with the subject of statistics,
> > > could misspell it as "stactic", or that it is a typo missing
> > > three letters but had an extraneous "c".
> >
> > "Inconcievable". That's six.
MY typo was "inconceibable", hitting the adjacent key to "v" to result
in "inconceibable" instead of the CORRECT spelling of "inconceivable".
The "Inconcievable" was James's correction to MY typo, which was
itself a typo!
That's where the plot really thickened, because I thought he was
correcting MY error of transposition, whereas it was James's
transposition error itself!
The CORRECT spelling is ... "inconceivable"!!!
>
> That was clearly a careless transposition caused by my low-flying
> fingers in too-rapid typing. :-)
>
> "inconcievable" used ONCE in 100,000 posts by Reef Fish.
>
> James, congratulations on a rare find.
This part stands. :-) Now James Robinson and I are tied 1 to 1.