John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:07:16 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXAnyXn.usenet.us.com
> wrote in <ejmevj$c63$2@blue.rahul.net>:

> >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:14:29 +0000 (UTC), dold@XReXXAnyXn.usenet.us.com
> >
> >> >Convenient, that, presuming that was really the one you wanted, or maybe
> >> >you preselected an address that worked well for this test.
> >
> >> That was a randomly chosen address on your worst case street. What more
> >> must I do?
> >
> >Then it's not fair to imply that the #1 item returned was the one that you
> >wanted. You "accepted" whatever came up first.

> Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I said the first two results
> included the one I wanted, as they did. And it would have been the
> first result had I been a bit more specific.

I misunderstand your use of "randomly chosen", and "the one I wanted".

> My only real objection to your statements is that you seem to think they
> are universal truths, rather than just your personal preference.

I accede that my preference differs from yours.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5