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

Groups > sci.physics > #636657 > unrolled thread

The Rule Of 72

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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 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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#636657 — 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]

#636824

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]

#636826

On 6/18/2017 2:46 AM, William Elliot wrote:
> What's the rule of 72?
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.

a pay back rule on loans
was declaired illegal in most states in the 1970's

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

#636829

Sегgi о wrote:
> On 6/18/2017 2:46 AM, William Elliot wrote:
>> What's the rule of 72?
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein did not create The Rule Of 72.
>
> a pay back rule on loans
> was declaired illegal in most states in the 1970's
>
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

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

#636853

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.

Best regards,
             Jack Fearnley

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

#636856

On 6/18/2017 1:42 PM, 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.
> 
> Best regards,
>               Jack Fearnley
> 
> 



I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,

http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html

it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
it made you pay more for a loan

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

#636919

Sегgi о wrote:
> On 6/18/2017 1:42 PM, 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.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>               Jack Fearnley
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,
>
> http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html
>
> it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
> it made you pay more for a loan

I don't remember loans ever being simple interest.

/BAH

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

#636924

On 6/19/2017 7:43 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Sегgi о wrote:
>> On 6/18/2017 1:42 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>                Jack Fearnley

>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,
>>
>> http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html
>>
>> it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
>> it made you pay more for a loan
> 
> I don't remember loans ever being simple interest.
> 
> /BAH
> 

I think it is dependent upon which state you are in, here the "rule of 
78" was discontinued from home loans.  But I think that in other states 
it is still legal.

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

#637049

Sегgi о wrote:
> On 6/19/2017 7:43 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Sегgi о wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2017 1:42 PM, 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.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>                Jack Fearnley
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I got this confused with the Rule of 78 used with Loans,
>>>
>>> http://www.tiac.net/~mabaker/rule_of_78.html
>>>
>>> it replaced simple interest calculation in the 60's and 70's and
>>> it made you pay more for a loan
>>
>> I don't remember loans ever being simple interest.
>>
>> /BAH
>>
>
> I think it is dependent upon which state you are in, here the "rule of
> 78" was discontinued from home loans.  But I think that in other states
> it is still legal.

OK.  My experiences are based on Michigan and Massachusetts.

However, banks make more money if they don't use simple interest model.

/BAH

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

#636920

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

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

#636950

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]

#637033

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]

#637050

[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]

#637055

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]

#637139

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]

#637186

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]

#637289

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]

#637310

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]

#637421

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]

#637449

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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web