>>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?