databases (was: Re: [Buddha-l] Tibetan for...?)

[Richard Hayes]

> Why would anyone
>> write a message to a list of this nature if they weren't basically trying 
>> to
>> show off how much they know about something of no real importance to 
>> anyone
>> in the universe except the fifty-three subscribers to buddha-l?
>>
>> -- 
>> Richard P. Hayes
>> Department of Philosophy
>> University of New Mexico
>> http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes
> ===========
> Goodness---------it's down to only 53? from the former thousands? 

The current number of subscribers is 473. When we were still located in 
Louisville, the number of apparent subscribers was 950, which is the 
highest number of subscribers buddha-l ever got to. When we moved to 
Albuquerque, it turned out that about 400 of those 950 were dead 
addresses left over from when people signed in and never bothered to 
sign out or subscribed under a new address and never deleted the old one.

If all the duplicates were removed from the current list of subscribers, 
  I'm guessing we'd have around 300 subscribers. If we didn't count all 
the ones who have their account set to nomail, we'd have about 200 left. 
If we substract from that the people who automatically delete every 
buddha-l message sent to them, we'd be down to around 75. Then if we 
substracted all the one who are figments of Dan Lusthaus's overactive 
Yogavara imagination, we'd be down to 53, most of whom, I suspect are 
arhants who won't resubscribe after they die.

Richard