On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:22:07 +0000, jms 
wrote in :

>I love it when someone has to back out and not give info to back up
>previous statements they have made.

As I wrote in a previous post, if you were to show some intent to learn
from the information I might post, then I might be persuaded to provide
information in a more explicit form than I have been willing to do yet. 

You should by now have been able to infer that putting an email address
into one of the fields in the Google Groups Advanced Search web form is
at least somewhat related to the question of how many posts someone has
made. Such a search delivered 250 results for me for the cited address.

Putting the email address into a different field gives a search that is
utterly unrelated to the apparently intended question and such a search
gave me 5 results which is near to the 4 that you claimed that you got.

I know which field is which because I have performed the experiment and
seen the results. You are less likely to learn by my simply telling you
which field is which than you may by performing the experiment yourself
and then trying to understand why you get different numbers of results.

My simply spoon-feeding you with answers you ought to be able to derive
for yourself seems to me to be a disservice not only to you but also to
those with whom you interact. My prolixity here also has other motives.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

In article , Owen Rees
 writes:

> My prolixity here also has other motives.

It's entirely justified.

-- 
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> In article , Owen Rees
>  writes:
> 
> > My prolixity here also has other motives.
> 
> It's entirely justified.

It's entirely fully justified ;-)

Theo