--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Can't resist, so I have to take advantage of a utility I wrote > > > > that allows me to highlight a block of text on any Web page > > > > and do a word count on it, without having to read it. > > > > > > > > Sal's post: 33 words > > > > > > > > MZ's reply, trying to suck her into an argument: 967 words > > > > > > Another boring day in the life of the Turqo; counting words. > > > :-) > > > > I'm curious to know whether anyone here has ever > > encountered a word-counting utility that requires > > one to read the words it counts. ;-) > > Judy, > > That means he's got nothing else better to do than count > words posted by others, as Nabs brilliantly deduced.
Er, right. I think the point of my question may have been too subtle. I was amused that Barry felt the need to *explain* to us that his word-counting utility allowed him to count words without reading them, as if there were word-counting utilities that *did* require one to read the words. For that matter, it was funny enough that he had to announce he had used a word-counting utility at all, as if he feared we might think he had done it manually.
