Anonymous ID: 70c948 Jan. 6, 2020, 6:22 p.m. No.7736701   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6740

>>7736664

No TV here.

Surely you can be a little more precise and descriptive? Just a gut feeling matters but it's not enough.

 

What was different?

The kinds of messages?

The anchors' behavior?

Amount or type of commercials?

Which programs were different?

Did you think there was a subtle change of emphasis or slant?

 

C'mon. Be more descriptive.

Anonymous ID: 70c948 Jan. 6, 2020, 6:58 p.m. No.7737034   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>7736803

No. I refuted the "116 characters is unusual" last night with EAM data I downloaded lats March for analysis.

Found a number of msgs that were 145 chars.

Agreed the shorter ones are more common but I do not ascribe anything particular to a message 116 chars long.

 

I posted a specimen of my data demonstrating that messages as long as 145 characters are not uncommon.

 

Someone then posted a link to a .CSV file but nobody would download it because they thought it could contain malware.

 

Why U post this again after it was pounded to death yesterday at the same time ?

 

Anons why do you automatically assume a post is credible simply because it contains some technical information?