Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422736 > unrolled thread

The Rule Of 72

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-16 10:27 -0700
    Re: The Rule Of 72 William Elliot <marsh@panix.com> - 2017-06-18 00:46 -0700
      Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 14:07 +0000
        Re: The Rule Of 72 David Bernier <david250@videotron.ca> - 2017-06-18 12:38 -0400
          Re: The Rule Of 72 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-06-18 19:27 +0000
      Re: The Rule Of 72 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-18 16:07 -0700
      Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 10:46 -0700
        Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-19 20:01 -0700
        Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
          Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-20 07:28 -0700
            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000
              Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-21 12:19 -0700
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-22 12:28 +0000
                  Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-22 08:58 -0700
                    Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-23 11:40 +0000
                      Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-23 10:11 -0700
                        Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-24 11:40 +0000
                          Re: The Rule Of 72 Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:46 +0000
                            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
                          Re: The Rule Of 72 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-24 09:12 -0700
                            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-25 13:50 +0000
          Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-20 14:54 +0000
            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-21 12:54 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#422736 — The Rule Of 72

Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.



all these people are wrong


http://personalfinanceliteracy.com/rule-72-einsteins-rate-return-formula/
https://books.google.com/books?id=ywcaDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=EZU9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://financialadvisoriq.com/c/1645543/189593



are you wrong too?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#422883

What's the rule of 72?

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:

> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422903

In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com>,
William Elliot  <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
>What's the rule of 72?
>
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.

The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
"fortune" login message on my UNIX machine.  As follows:

> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
> Happens every six months or so.  So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
> that I'd share it with you.

> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
> And in LA it's 72.

> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
> humidity is a million percent.
> And in LA it's 72.

> In New York there are a million interesting people.
> And in LA there are 72.

And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422914

On 06/18/2017 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com>,
> William Elliot  <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
>> What's the rule of 72?
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
> 
> The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
> "fortune" login message on my UNIX machine.  As follows:
> 
>> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
>> Happens every six months or so.  So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
>> that I'd share it with you.
> 
>> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
>> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
>> And in LA it's 72.
> 
>> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
>> humidity is a million percent.
>> And in LA it's 72.
> 
>> In New York there are a million interesting people.
>> And in LA there are 72.
> 
> And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.
> 

LA: "Less Than Zero" (the novel) is set in Los Angeles ...

ref.: Less Than Zero (Wikipedia),

< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_Than_Zero_(novel) > .

David Bernier

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422928

In article <oi6a35$ee5$1@dont-email.me>,
David Bernier  <david250@videotron.ca> wrote:
>On 06/18/2017 10:07 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1706180046100.4820@panix5.panix.com>,
>> William Elliot  <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
>>> What's the rule of 72?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
>> 
>> The only Rule of 72 I know of appears from time to time in the
>> "fortune" login message on my UNIX machine.  As follows:
>> 
>>> I'm going through my "I want to go back to New York" phase today.
>>> Happens every six months or so.  So, I thought, perhaps unwisely,
>>> that I'd share it with you.
>> 
>>> In New York in the winter it is million degrees below zero and
>>> the wind travels at a million miles an hour down 5th avenue.
>>> And in LA it's 72.
>> 
>>> In New York in the summer it is a million degrees and the
>>> humidity is a million percent.
>>> And in LA it's 72.
>> 
>>> In New York there are a million interesting people.
>>> And in LA there are 72.
>> 
>> And no, I don't think Einstein wrote it.
>> 
>
>LA: "Less Than Zero" (the novel) is set in Los Angeles ...
>
>ref.: Less Than Zero (Wikipedia),
>
>< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Less_Than_Zero_(novel) > .

Well, yucch.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#422910

"William Elliot" <marsh@panix.com> wrote:
> What's the rule of 72?
> 
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> the SternKacker  wrote:
>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
>
hanson wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery>
who was arrested for wife-beating in 1906, twice,
and AE did not create anything and much less
Rule 72 which is position 69 with 3 people watching.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423012

jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> Jack Fearnley wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:21:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >> But it's a fast way to estimate the time to double the original amount
> >> when the interest or dividends are reinvested.
> >>
> >> IIRC, divide 72 by the percentage.  That will give the number of year to
> >> double the original amount.
> >>
> >> /BAH
> >
> > The exact doubling time is log(2)/log(1+r/100).
> > If we expand log in a Taylor series and take only the first term
> > we get the approximate doubling time as 100*log(2)/r.
> > That is 69.315/r.
> >
> > So why don't we use a rule of 69 or a rule of 70?
> >
> > It turns out that, in the range 1% to 10% and rounded to whole years, 72
> > is more accurate than 69.315.
> >
> > I found this quite surprising.
> 
> There are a lot of accounting tricks having to with 9s.  I suppose people
> aren't being taught these rules since most accounting is done by computer
> rather than "by hand".  ISTM there was a book published which described
> these "9" tricks.  I always meant to figure out proofs for them but
> life got in the way :-).  When you first encounter these tricks of the
> trade, you think it's magic.
> 
> /BAH


You mean like the value someone came up with the speed of light accounting trick: 

299,792,458 meters per second


299 



it ends like a 99.9  percent ( how these guys think when they are unsure)


299...just short of 300


keeping it under the true value of over 300,000,000.



Then I notice other "9" patterns...


299,792,458


792

7+2=9

458

4+5=9


299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423056

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> jmfbahciv wrote:
> >
> > Jack Fearnley wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:21:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>
> > >> But it's a fast way to estimate the time to double the original amount
> > >> when the interest or dividends are reinvested.
> > >>
> > >> IIRC, divide 72 by the percentage.  That will give the number of year to
> > >> double the original amount.
> > >>
> > >> /BAH
> > >
> > > The exact doubling time is log(2)/log(1+r/100).
> > > If we expand log in a Taylor series and take only the first term
> > > we get the approximate doubling time as 100*log(2)/r.
> > > That is 69.315/r.
> > >
> > > So why don't we use a rule of 69 or a rule of 70?
> > >
> > > It turns out that, in the range 1% to 10% and rounded to whole years, 72
> > > is more accurate than 69.315.
> > >
> > > I found this quite surprising.
> >
> > There are a lot of accounting tricks having to with 9s.  I suppose people
> > aren't being taught these rules since most accounting is done by computer
> > rather than "by hand".  ISTM there was a book published which described
> > these "9" tricks.  I always meant to figure out proofs for them but
> > life got in the way :-).  When you first encounter these tricks of the
> > trade, you think it's magic.
> >
> > /BAH
> 
> You mean like the value someone came up with the speed of light accounting trick:
> 
> 299,792,458 meters per second
> 
> 299
> 
> it ends like a 99.9  percent ( how these guys think when they are unsure)
> 
> 299...just short of 300
> 
> keeping it under the true value of over 300,000,000.
> 
> Then I notice other "9" patterns...
> 
> 299,792,458
> 
> 792
> 
> 7+2=9
> 
> 458
> 
> 4+5=9
> 
> 299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????


Okay...going a step further on the "9" accounting trick..

How many nines are there in  299,792,458?

There are three numbered "9"'s
There are 4+5=9 and 7+2=9 2+7=9
So that totals 3 more "9"s
Then you have nine digits - 299,792,458


299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????


What is the speed of light? 99999999999999999999999998


good thing i'm not good at arithmetic...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423086

[some newsgroups elided]

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> Jack Fearnley wrote:
>> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:21:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>
>> >> But it's a fast way to estimate the time to double the original amount
>> >> when the interest or dividends are reinvested.
>> >>
>> >> IIRC, divide 72 by the percentage.  That will give the number of year to
>> >> double the original amount.
>> >>
>> >> /BAH
>> >
>> > The exact doubling time is log(2)/log(1+r/100).
>> > If we expand log in a Taylor series and take only the first term
>> > we get the approximate doubling time as 100*log(2)/r.
>> > That is 69.315/r.
>> >
>> > So why don't we use a rule of 69 or a rule of 70?
>> >
>> > It turns out that, in the range 1% to 10% and rounded to whole years, 72
>> > is more accurate than 69.315.
>> >
>> > I found this quite surprising.
>>
>> There are a lot of accounting tricks having to with 9s.  I suppose people
>> aren't being taught these rules since most accounting is done by computer
>> rather than "by hand".  ISTM there was a book published which described
>> these "9" tricks.  I always meant to figure out proofs for them but
>> life got in the way :-).  When you first encounter these tricks of the
>> trade, you think it's magic.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>
> You mean like the value someone came up with the speed of light accounting
trick:
>
> 299,792,458 meters per second
>
>
> 299
>
>
>
> it ends like a 99.9  percent ( how these guys think when they are unsure)
>
>
> 299...just short of 300
>
>
> keeping it under the true value of over 300,000,000.
>
>
>
> Then I notice other "9" patterns...
>
>
> 299,792,458
>
>
> 792
>
> 7+2=9
>
> 458
>
> 4+5=9
>
>
> 299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????

I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting
and bookkeeping practices.  IIRC, one of the "9" tricks helped
a bookkeeper figure out if an imbalance was caused by transposing
two numbers.  there were many more little tricks to figure out
mistakes.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423117

jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> [some newsgroups elided]
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >> Jack Fearnley wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:21:35 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>
> >> >> But it's a fast way to estimate the time to double the original amount
> >> >> when the interest or dividends are reinvested.
> >> >>
> >> >> IIRC, divide 72 by the percentage.  That will give the number of year to
> >> >> double the original amount.
> >> >>
> >> >> /BAH
> >> >
> >> > The exact doubling time is log(2)/log(1+r/100).
> >> > If we expand log in a Taylor series and take only the first term
> >> > we get the approximate doubling time as 100*log(2)/r.
> >> > That is 69.315/r.
> >> >
> >> > So why don't we use a rule of 69 or a rule of 70?
> >> >
> >> > It turns out that, in the range 1% to 10% and rounded to whole years, 72
> >> > is more accurate than 69.315.
> >> >
> >> > I found this quite surprising.
> >>
> >> There are a lot of accounting tricks having to with 9s.  I suppose people
> >> aren't being taught these rules since most accounting is done by computer
> >> rather than "by hand".  ISTM there was a book published which described
> >> these "9" tricks.  I always meant to figure out proofs for them but
> >> life got in the way :-).  When you first encounter these tricks of the
> >> trade, you think it's magic.
> >>
> >> /BAH
> >
> >
> > You mean like the value someone came up with the speed of light accounting
> trick:
> >
> > 299,792,458 meters per second
> >
> >
> > 299
> >
> >
> >
> > it ends like a 99.9  percent ( how these guys think when they are unsure)
> >
> >
> > 299...just short of 300
> >
> >
> > keeping it under the true value of over 300,000,000.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then I notice other "9" patterns...
> >
> >
> > 299,792,458
> >
> >
> > 792
> >
> > 7+2=9
> >
> > 458
> >
> > 4+5=9
> >
> >
> > 299,792,458 meters per second is an accounting trick, isn't it????
> 
> I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting
> and bookkeeping practices.  IIRC, one of the "9" tricks helped
> a bookkeeper figure out if an imbalance was caused by transposing
> two numbers.  there were many more little tricks to figure out
> mistakes.
> 
> /BAH

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...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423178

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> [some newsgroups elided]

<snip>

> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423212

jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >> [some newsgroups elided]
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 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. 


In numerolgy the number "9" it always becomes a 9 using some sort of trick.




if that is the case then the speed of light should read: 299,792,459



maybe you just don't know ...numerology.


The fact that you didn't understand anything I wrote is noted.


You might know math but you don't know your numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423248

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [some newsgroups elided]
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > 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.

<snip nonsense>

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423267

jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > 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.
> 
> <snip nonsense>
> 
> /BAH


Well, here is what you wrote:

"I'm not talking about numerology.  I'm talking about real accounting
 and bookkeeping practices."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423313

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> <snip nonsense>
>>
>> /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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423327

jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> <snip nonsense>
> >>
> >> /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...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423358

The Starmaker wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> <snip nonsense>
>> >>
>> >> /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.

But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
a half-assed numerology rendition.

>
>
> 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.

No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
to understand how you think.
>
>
> I'm not a Number person...

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423360

jmfbahciv wrote:

>> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
> 
> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
> to understand how you think.
>
>> I'm not a Number person...
> 
> /BAH

You are insulting me by saying /BAH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423427

Valok Planek wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>> But...you're problably a Number person and not a Word person.
>>
>> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
>> to understand how you think.
>>
>>> I'm not a Number person...
>>
>> /BAH
>
> You are insulting me by saying /BAH.

If you're insulted with this, you need to reexamine your assumptions.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423367

jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> >> >> > jmfbahciv wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> [some newsgroups elided]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip nonsense>
> >> >>
> >> >> /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.
> 
> But you were doing numerology in the text which has been elided; it was
> a half-assed numerology rendition.

I wasn't really aware I was doing numerology...I thought I was doing science math highly advanced mathematics!  



> 
> >
> >
> > 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.
> 
> No wonder you have problems in this newsgroup's topics.  I'm beginning
> to understand how you think.


I wasn't really aware I was...thinking. 


> >
> >
> > I'm not a Number person...
> 
> /BAH

humbug/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web