Re: The Rule Of 72

Message-ID	<594E8F6A.6F83@ix.netcom.com> (permalink)
Date	2017-06-24 09:12 -0700
From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups	sci.math, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.arts.sf.written, alt.astronomy
Subject	Re: The Rule Of 72
References	(16 earlier) <PM0005528BCC8E56E9@aca43d4a.ipt.aol.com> <594BE91A.543A@ix.netcom.com> <PM0005529F3D0AE111@aca4473b.ipt.aol.com> <594D4BD8.5512@ix.netcom.com> <PM000552B35C30858F@aca40855.ipt.aol.com>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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/

Thread

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 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-18 07:03 -0500
      Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-18 13:21 +0000
        Re: The Rule Of 72 Jack Fearnley <jack@alcor.concordia.ca> - 2017-06-18 18:42 +0000
          Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-18 14:18 -0500
            Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-19 12:43 +0000
              Re: The Rule Of 72 Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-19 08:45 -0500
                Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-20 12:12 +0000
          Re: The Rule Of 72 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-06-19 12:43 +0000
            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
    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

csiph-web