Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:11:57 -0500 Message-ID: <594D4BD8.5512@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:11:52 -0700 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,rec.arts.sf.written,alt.astronomy Subject: Re: The Rule Of 72 References: <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <59441500.660A@ix.netcom.com> <59480DFB.46CB@ix.netcom.com> <594930F4.7BE0@ix.netcom.com> <594AC6AE.7D61@ix.netcom.com> <594BE91A.543A@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 170623-2, 06/23/2017), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Lines: 63 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.219.229.47 X-Trace: sv3-s7y/bitRIh0i5tZAI+CvhZTt8JX9PMyxQ5pTo0YSEwqZBojBVqbhluqURirxL+ihMvoveEw94PwpWSi!NllzjKN5D0NBJ4WHZ0thQhFSr3RFubWQB/2Xlt64++u//ytOxYZDKYK703cmJenHL5piLFvmBwvD!AFvnSmxFfFo= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 3527 Xref: csiph.com sci.math:377654 sci.physics:637449 sci.physics.relativity:423327 rec.arts.sf.written:473767 alt.astronomy:291621 jmfbahciv wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> > >> The Starmaker wrote: > >> > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The Starmaker wrote: > >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> [some newsgroups elided] > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Well, if that is the case then the speed of light should read: > >> 299,792,459 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > somebody must have made a mistake somewhere... > >> >> > > >> >> > (i was wondering how that "8" got in there...) > >> >> > >> >> The fact that you didn't read anything I wrote is noted. > >> >> > >> >> /BAH > >> > > >> > > >> > i think you said it was numerlogy and not an accounting trick, so...it's > all > >> about the number "9" in the > >> > world of numerology. > >> > >> That's not what I wrote. Your flip flopped when it shouldh't have. > >> > >> > >> > >> /BAH > > > > > > Well, here is what you wrote: > > > > "I'm not talking about numerology. I'm talking about real accounting > > and bookkeeping practices." > > Do you know what the word "not" means? > > hmmm...perhaps this is the cause of all the confusion you have in > your posts. > > /BAH Well, I wasn't talking about "numerology" beforehand, ...but since You seem to recognize it as "numerology" then you are stating it was ...numerology. I mean...that's How I read it, I don't know How You read it, I can only go by your words, not your intentions. But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person. I'm not a Number person...