gravitas numbers

[Mullins, Bill]

>
> I'm not sure how many false positives you're going to get on
> a word like "gravitas." In any case, for a non-critical count
> like this one, couldn't it be accepted that the error rate
> would be relatively the same across the entire 1999-2005 period?
>

I dunno.  It seems to me that everyone else (with the exception of the
fine folks on the ADS-L, wink) is getting stupider as time goes on.  If
that's so, the error rate would increase . . .  .