Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*C4\s+Vette\s+number\s+crunching\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*C4\s+Vette\s+number\s+crunching\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. C4 Vette number crunching (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:17:49 -0700; Who cares? I think we are on totally different wavelengths. Why 1989 again? 1994 should be the year analyzed. Maybe even 1995. The data only shows that SS has gotten stronger! 23 cars in 1989? Heck,; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00485.html (7,145 bytes)
2. Re: C4 Vette number crunching (score: 1): Author: Paul Foster <pfoster@gdi.net>; Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 17:48:21 -0400; Strange comment from an SCAC member but wasn't that the point of argument yesterday? As I have already explained I had the '89 data but no other. Al Chen has done a great job with the '94 data (which; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00488.html (8,206 bytes)
3. Re: C4 Vette number crunching (score: 1): Author: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com; Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:56:24 -0700; The "Who cares" was taken out of context. Any person following this thread understands the point. The point is that 1989 isn't a representative year to use as support for your argument. you have stat; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00491.html (7,481 bytes)
4. Re: C4 Vette number crunching (score: 1): Author: "Mark J. Andy" <marka@telerama.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:09:32 -0400 (EDT); I think we have to agree that "Paul" (Like he's really a person and not some new coolio AI thing my buddies setup) needs more to do at work. Mark; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00494.html (6,943 bytes)
5. RE: C4 Vette number crunching (score: 1): Author: "Kelly, Katie" <kkelly@spss.com>; Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 15:06:57 -0700; Mark Andy writes... Is that it? Is "Paul" a virus? Because I can't get it off my system. Someone should notify McAfee. Katie; /html/autox/1999-10/msg00499.html (7,086 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 5
Page: [1]