So who's reading this journal then?
Me, obsessively, I'm a great fan!
Me, and you're on my default friends view
Me, but only because I'm bored and randomly wandering LJ
Did you mysteriously give me my paid account time several months ago?
So do you want to give me more paid account time now it's about to expire?
No, your journal is much more interesting without your polls
No, you should pay for it yourself, you cheapskate.
|Date:||April 22nd, 2005 04:56 pm (UTC)|| |
I'd like to give you more paid account time, but am broke so cannot.
|Date:||April 22nd, 2005 06:08 pm (UTC)|| |
I feel guilty now. I didn't actually expect people to!
Then again, if it motivates me to do random nice things for other people because people do random nice things to me, it's a Good Thing
|Date:||April 22nd, 2005 06:55 pm (UTC)|| |
No worries. =) I didn't take it as an expectation.
|Date:||April 22nd, 2005 05:27 pm (UTC)|| |
Since I've admitted to reading your journal occasionally and finding it interesting, have friended you, if that's ok?
|Date:||April 22nd, 2005 07:57 pm (UTC)|| |
That's cool. Welcome to the other half of my random witterings :-)
Bah. Poor Questionnaire Design Looms.
No. Because I don't do paying for othe people's Livejournal.
It was possible to leave the last question blank though (which I did) which I think is better than being forced to say something one doesn't mean!
|Date:||April 22nd, 2005 10:15 pm (UTC)|| |
Of course, those interested in the art of extracting information from data will note the fact that seven of the respondents to your first question didn't answer the second in the negative ...
Except as it was tickyboxes it was possible to answer more than one thing so the fact that there's a total of 62 responses to the first question doesn't show that there were 62 respondents. One needs to work out what 46 is 79.3% which (when I manage to remember/work out how to do the maths!)* is 58. This tallies with the fact that when I compared to results of the first question and the second question, I found that 4 people had answered the first question but not the second and 1 person who'd answered the second question but not the first. The fact that one of the 4 people who didn't answer the second question is the person I thought most likely to buy atreic
paid LJness is one of the four who didn't answer the second question is perhaps significant.
*Maths was a long time ago! Scarily though I worked it by going 46/x =.793 so 46 = .793x so 46/.793 = x.
|Date:||April 23rd, 2005 08:14 am (UTC)|| |
Are you going to tell me who it is, or do I have to do that long and painful sounding proceedure myself?
/me is against reinventing the wheel on principle :-)
Spotting who hadn't voted wasn't a long and painful procedure. I clicked view answers to the first question and copied and pasted that into notepad, repeated this with the second question and then comparing them was easy because they are listed in order of voting. However, when I'd done this I was left with emperor
having voted in the first question but not the second and flats
having voted in the second but not the first. This didn't tally with arnhem
's seven and so I then had to work out why and it was obvious that it was because they were tickyboxes and so I had to work out the total from the percentage given (where I scared myself by having forgotten how to the maths and being able to work it out for myself!). Now, of the list of those who haven't told you whether they were responsible for the paid time, I've never heard of one, know of two via LJ (though I believe I've met one of them at a party) and know the fourth (who was my prime suspect anyway for obvious reasons).
(d) No, you should write your own polls by hand-coding HTML in edlin... :)
I went for "Me, because I'm bored and randomly reading LJ", but that isn't quite true: once I've read my own friends page, if I know I've got a few spare minutes I wander over here because there's generally a good debate going on in at least one comment thread. :)
Having said that, I've now friended you anyway. Hope that's alright.