Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net!not-for-mail From: owl Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: OT: OK, what changed? Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 04:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Organization: O.W.L. Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <1kndlckkgb3d2.rqp1ssahifel.dlg@40tude.net> <1lck98ns5qela$.t2p2830e9kka.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64)) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:328476 Snit wrote: > On 10/25/15, 8:56 PM, in article sdgl.bmxj85@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > wrote: > >>>>>> I had written this: >>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>> [owl]: >>>>>> "Now that's funny. 154 rounds in 264 seconds with a semi-auto AR-15. >>>>>> That's 1 round every 1.714 seconds." >>>>>> >>>>>> So Snit came up with this nonsense: >>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>> [Snit]: >>>>>> "And it would NOT be even an AVERAGE of "1 round every 1.714 seconds", >>>>>> it >>>>>> would be an AVERAGE of 1 round every 0.583 seconds." >>>>>> >>>>>> See, school is NOT boring. It's full of comedy! >>>>> >>>>> Yes! When you could not get the concept of an average. That WAS funny! >>>>> >>>>> I also goofed on math and then openly admitted it. Yup. I made a mistake. >>>>> But not so funny when someone openly admits it. >>>>> >>>>> I did. You NEVER did. >>>>> >>>>> And you won't now, will you? >>> >>> A simple "no" would have done. >>> >>>> When you provide proof that the rounds fired at Sandy Hook were *not* >>>> fired at a rate of *exactly* 1 round every 1.714 seconds, which was very >>>> likely the case given that the so-called shooter was a known Assburger >>>> who may well have been fixated on that number, Rainman that he was, >>>> then we can take it as an average. >>> >>> LOL! >>> >> >> So you have no evidence to back up your wild claim that it was not exactly >> 1 round every 1.714 seconds. Got it. > > LOL! You cannot help but prove me correct. You have no clue what an average > is. None. You assume that the average should be accepted as the EXACT > times... just idiocy from you. > I see you sorted your nyms out. Too bad you still have no evidence to support your wild claims.