squares, circles, triangles, etc.
$Zero
what is the difference between a square, a circle, a triangle, a
trapezoid, etc.?
well, their shapes, of course.
but mostly, it's the relationship of each of the points within to all
of the other points within.
...
i was having this strange dream last night.
and the gist was that there really is no differences between squares
and circles and such.
and while i was dreaming, it all seemed so clear.
but now?
it just seems like a bunch of nonsense.
though not entirely.
there was something very comforting about the discovery.
though, at this point, i can't put my finger on it.
-$Zero...
OJ gets 15 years for being found not guilty of murder
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/37525c3de4536e83
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> squares, circles, triangles, etc.
>
> what is the difference between a square, a circle, a triangle, a
> trapezoid, etc.?
>
> well, their shapes, of course.
>
> but mostly, it's the relationship of each of the points within to all
> of the other points within.
>
> ...
>
> i was having this strange dream last night.
>
> and the gist was that there really is no differences between squares
> and circles and such.
>
> and while i was dreaming, it all seemed so clear.
>
> but now?
>
> it just seems like a bunch of nonsense.
>
> though not entirely.
>
> there was something very comforting about the discovery.
>
> though, at this point, i can't put my finger on it.
>
> -$Zero...
>
circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
Bill Penrose
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What bothers me is that you have to go 360 degrees to come full
> circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
> 180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
Now I'm not going to sleep until I've figured it out.
I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
DB
John Ashby
>news:3934dc26->8316-4e61-ad1...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 10, 1:50 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> What bothers me is that you have to go 360 degrees to come full
>> circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
>> 180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
>Now I'm not going to sleep until I've figured it out.
It's not true. 360 for a circle, 270 for a square and 180+alpha for a
triangle where alpha is the angle at the corner from which you start.
>I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
Only in a Euclidean universe. Out here in the real world things are
different.
john
Bill Penrose
> >I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
>
> Only in a Euclidean universe. Out here in the real world things are
> different.
Then I'm never getting on a train again.
DB
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> >"Bill Penrose" <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3934dc26->8316-4e61-ad1d-f9f526bd5__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 1:50 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> What bothers me is that you have to go 360 degrees to come full
> >> circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
> >> 180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
> >Now I'm not going to sleep until I've figured it out.
>
> It's not true. 360 for a circle, 270 for a square and 180+alpha for a
> triangle where alpha is the angle at the corner from which you start.
>
> >I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
>
> Only in a Euclidean universe. Out here in the real world things are
> different.
>
> john
Where do you get 270? Four corners 90' each = 360.
$Zero
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 6:22 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >"Bill Penrose" <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >On Dec 10, 1:50 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >> What bothers me is that you have to go 360 degrees to come full
> > >> circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
> > >> 180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
> > >Now I'm not going to sleep until I've figured it out.
>
> > It's not true. 360 for a circle, 270 for a square and 180+alpha for a
> > triangle where alpha is the angle at the corner from which you start.
>
> > >I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
>
> > Only in a Euclidean universe. Out here in the real world things are
> > different.
>
> > john
>
> Where do you get 270? Four corners 90' each = 360.
there are no angles in circles.
-$Zero...
but mostly, it's the relationship
of each of the points within to
all of the other points within.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3ed73d2553ab07d1
John Ashby
> >message
>news:bf6a3d1e-2dee-40a1-8dc8->6200f1...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You don't need to turn the last corner.
john
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> >"Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> > >message
> >news:bf6a3d1e-2dee-40a1-8dc8->6200f1aba__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >On Dec 10, 6:22 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >"Bill Penrose" <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >On Dec 10, 1:50 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> >> ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >> What bothers me is that you have to go 360 degrees to come full
> >> >> circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
> >> >> 180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
> >> >Now I'm not going to sleep until I've figured it out.
>
> >> It's not true. 360 for a circle, 270 for a square and 180+alpha for a
> >> triangle where alpha is the angle at the corner from which you start.
>
> >> >I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
>
> >> Only in a Euclidean universe. Out here in the real world things are
> >> different.
>
> >> john
>
> >Where do you get 270? Four corners 90' each = 360.
>
> You don't need to turn the last corner.
>
> john
But if you don't, how do you know you're in a square? (Assume you are
blind) Also if you start in the middle of a side why would you not?
boots
Determining what you're in can be a real hoot. Being told is much
easier. Unless of course someone fibs to you.
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
Bill Penrose
> >> >> Only in a Euclidean universe. Out here in the real world things are
> >> >> different.
> >> You don't need to turn the last corner.
> >blind) Also if you start in the middle of a side why would you not?
>
> Determining what you're in can be a real hoot. Being told is much
> easier. Unless of course someone fibs to you.
If I'd ever taught math to you bunch, I'd be writing my death poem and
sharpening up my seppuku sword about now.
DB
Echosyn
Common ground here, Bill. 78.5398% of a square's area gives the
equally wide circle's area. Now float those against roots and powers
of Pi and Phi, the Golden Section/Mean. Then bounce those results off
the elements and their radio frequency signatures and you also can
control weather, change vines into trees, generate earthquakes, cause
disease or health, etc. ad infinitum. Tesla showed the way. The
point is that ratio preceeded and ever preceeds number in all
dimensions. Hermes Trismegistus counseled us to eschew the angles and
follow the curves, and in here is the clue to solving Fermat's Last
Theorem.
Here's a proposition:
Using the numbers 1-12 as units without referencing any of the myriad
measuring systems, calculate as a ratio the surface area relative to
volume of, cube, sphere and rectangular solid. Do each of the three
for each number then graph the 3 series of results
and overlay them. Pay special attention to the number 6.
When you are finished tell me if this is true: As an object enlarges
its surface area relative to its volume decreases.
-Echosyn
Bill Penrose
> Here's a proposition:
> Using the numbers 1-12 as units without referencing any of the myriad
> measuring systems, calculate as a ratio the surface area relative to
> volume of, cube, sphere and rectangular solid. Do each of the three
> for each number then graph the 3 series of results
> and overlay them. Pay special attention to the number 6.
>
> When you are finished tell me if this is true: As an object enlarges
> its surface area relative to its volume decreases.
Any limits on shape?
DB
Echosyn
Lemme rephrase. As an object enlarges while retaining its original
shape its surface area relative to its volume decreases.
In science this has considerable bearing on understanding the past and
on the design of heat transfer systems.
-Echosyn
boots
If I'd been commenting on something as straightforward as analytic
geometry you'd have reason to.
boots
"understanding the past"?
When you refer to "the past", are you talking about history, or time?
$Zero
> On Dec 11, 11:28 pm, Bill Penrose <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:24 pm, Echosyn <non_lo...@copper.net> wrote:
>
> > > Here's a proposition:
> > > Using the numbers 1-12 as units without referencing any of the myriad
> > > measuring systems, calculate as a ratio the surface area relative to
> > > volume of, cube, sphere and rectangular solid. Do each of the three
> > > for each number then graph the 3 series of results
> > > and overlay them. Pay special attention to the number 6.
>
> > > When you are finished tell me if this is true: As an object enlarges
> > > its surface area relative to its volume decreases.
>
> > Any limits on shape?
>
> > DB
>
> Lemme rephrase. As an object enlarges while retaining its original
> shape its surface area relative to its volume decreases.
now reconsider each shape, except, this time, when calculating your
surface vs volume theory (comparing spheres vs cubes and whatnot),
base each comparative calculation with one variable being constant:
set the volume of each respective shape equal to infinity.
-$Zero...
i was having this strange dream last night.
and the gist was that there really are no
differences between squares and circles and
whatnot.
and while i was dreaming, it all seemed so clear.
but now? it just seems like a bunch of nonsense.
though not entirely.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/af24132c1980f6ff
Bill Penrose
I'm thinking of dendritic shapes, like a branched tree or some
polymers. Intuitively, it seems the area/volume would still decrease,
but it's not that obviousonce you get away from regular shapes.
DB
$Zero
why?
for every tweak increase of area, you'd get that much more increase in
volume.
that seems intuitively correct, too, doesn't it?
> but it's not that obvious once you get away from regular shapes.
or once volume equals infinity.
-$Zero...
but now? it just seems like a bunch of nonsense.
though not entirely. there was something very
comforting about the discovery. though, at this
point, i can't really put my finger on it.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/af24132c1980f6ff
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
How can something get to infinity if it is bounded?
$Zero
-$Zero...
call or visit Home Depot
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f4d16230e5c83e73
Echosyn
Echosyn
Can you answer my question, $Zero?
-Echosyn
Echosyn
Dendritics are Mandelbrot sets which can be awesomely beautiful, but
what I am getting at is that there is a peculiarity about numbers that
is almost universally overlooked. Keeping my previous question in
mind, calculate surface area relative to volume of a cube that is one
cubic foot in size. Now select several measuring systems of your
choice and convert the foot to those systems then successively
calculate the area/volume with each of the conversions. Note that the
cube does not change, only the numbers and a/v ratios change. A unit
can be an angstrom or a light year, but a 6 is always a 6 and a 1 is
always a 1, so I propose that true surface area relative to volume is
known when the base unit for calculation is the number 1, and a/v is
constant to a constant shape regardless of size. The a/v changes only
with a change in shape. In the graphs mentioned above you will see
that the surface area and volume are the same number when 6 is used
as a base dimension.
Why is this important? Linear thinking and ignorance of ratio leads
the majority of people on the streets and in universities to think
that surface area relative to volume decreases as an object of a given
shape enlarges, and they do not consider this fact about numbers.
Their most common argument to support their belief is misapplication
of the fact that small objects lose heat faster than large objects.
-Echosyn
boots
How do you have your concepts arranged so that surface area and volume
both have some relationship to time?
$Zero
of course i can.
can you answer mine?
to answer _your_ question all one needs to do is open up a
spreadsheet, define a few formulas, and plug in some numbers.
(or simply make an intuitive guess).
to answer _my_ question one has to figure out the shape of infinity.
-$Zero...
$100 has a time value. nothing more.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/473c4f3083434846
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
First you have to explain why infinity would have a shape.
$Zero
well, first you'd have to explain how something that has absolutely no
shape can be thought of as existing in the first place.
if infinity truly has no shape, perhaps it's nothing but a big scam.
...
it would make for an interesting comic novel, wouldn't it?
some renowned scientist accidently discovers that infinity doesn't
really exist.
and he proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt.
then he has to deal with all the mockery from his colleagues.
which he soon realizes is quite a bit of fun.
-$Zero...
what is the shape of infinity?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c604644154b93e8b
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Show me a thought ( not it's visual interpretation by the
interpreter ) and you will have the shape of infinity.
$Zero
ok:
"explain how something that has absolutely no shape
can be THOUGHT of as existing in the first place."
> and you will have the shape of infinity.
fine.
now calculate its area to volume ratio.
-$Zero...
if infinity truly has no shape,
perhaps it's nothing but a big scam.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/90e73e87af7cab4e
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
The ratio approaches infinity as infinity approaches infinity.
$Zero
> > > > > First you have to explain why infinity would have a shape.
>
> > > > well, first you'd have to explain how something that has absolutely no
> > > > shape can be thought of as existing in the first place.
>
> > > > if infinity truly has no shape, perhaps it's nothing but a big scam.
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > it would make for an interesting comic novel, wouldn't it?
>
> > > > some renowned scientist accidently discovers that infinity doesn't
> > > > really exist.
>
> > > > and he proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt.
>
> > > > then he has to deal with all the mockery from his colleagues.
>
> > > > which he soon realizes is quite a bit of fun.
> > > Show me a thought ( not it's visual interpretation by the
> > > interpreter )
>
> > ok:
>
> > "explain how something that has absolutely no shape
> > can be THOUGHT of as existing in the first place."
>
> > > and you will have the shape of infinity.
>
> > fine.
>
> > now calculate its area to volume ratio.
> The ratio approaches infinity as infinity approaches infinity.
nope.
we've already established that the volume is equal to infinity, so
there's no "approaching infinity" about it.
and if we assume that the volume of any positive shape is always
greater than its surface area, the ratio would be:
X
---
infinity
where X = some finite number less than infinity.
-$Zero...
if infinity truly has no shape,
perhaps it's nothing but a big scam.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/90e73e87af7cab4e
Echosyn
We can't see into tomorrow and we look into the past through our
individual tinted lenses of limitations and weaknesses. Our
perception is that all previous events occurred through time; time
being referred to by some physicists as a dimension after the solids.
I disagree, but that's a separate issue. I think it was Rene' DuBose
who said "--We shall count 1 2 3 unto infinity." , implying that
mankind will attain deity by his own efforts. Machines are now in use
that cause an effect instantaneously at any plotted volume of space
within the ionosphere. Time is not a factor with this application
that can be called cyclotron resonance,
an application that I use in my plant genetics experiments. I take
issue with the common and quite normal perception of the cosmos as
only a tangible mass of things , elements, minerals, gasses etc. laced
with varying types of measurable energies.
That is what I call the meatbot view, and I blame our educators who
revised human and natural history. Google up "numbers in Nature" then
spend some time perusing the sites and you will begin to see what I
see. The Hermetic Doctrine has been dusted off and brought into
today. But some in power now abuse the knowledge.
-Echosyn
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Why does infinity have to be positive?
Echosyn
> On Dec 10, 9:57 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
>
>
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 6:22 pm, "John Ashby" <johnashb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >"Bill Penrose" <dangerousb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >On Dec 10, 1:50 pm, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> > > ><john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > >> What bothers me is that you have to go 360 degrees to come full
> > > >> circle, 360 degrees to measure the square, but you only have to travel
> > > >> 180 to perimeter a triangle and yet they are all enclosed spaces.
> > > >Now I'm not going to sleep until I've figured it out.
>
> > > It's not true. 360 for a circle, 270 for a square and 180+alpha for a
> > > triangle where alpha is the angle at the corner from which you start.
>
> > > >I'm just getting over the parallel lines not meeting thing.
>
> > > different.
>
>
> > Where do you get 270? Four corners 90' each = 360.
>
>
> -$Zero...
>
> http://itsazenthinger.com
>
> but mostly, it's the relationship
> of each of the points within to
> all of the other points within.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3ed73d2553ab07d1
Hermes Trismejistus, in reference to the geometry of the pyramid of
fame in Gizeh, counselled us to "Eschew the angles and follow the
curves. IOW, don't be such a monochromatic dullard, Zero, and wake
up to the fact that you are more than a cipher; you are a torus of
energy ruled by Phi.
-Echosyn, the non_local of Jachin618, Guardian of the East Pillar
boots
Oh. You presume materiality to be the cause of all, and from that you
derive the concept of time having some material essence and thus being
required to conform to the surface/volume ratios you find so
fascinating. Do I have that right?
Echosyn
Yer 180 degrees off course thre, mate. In the beginning there was the
Word.
-Echosyn
boots
Well I can't figure you out. You spew volumninosity to no purpose.
You yakk about undescribed plant genetics experiments which presumably
have undescribed results. You wave around the penis of esotericism as
a flag. Yet in the end, you give the appearance of contradicting
yourself.
This is a writing group. Despite the opinion of some I am not its
sole idiot. Write for fools or continue to be misunderstood.
Google up "berkeley's immaterialsm". Discount the fact that he was a
bishop thus committed to certain assumptions by concepts he could not
permit himself to consider. Or, not.
Consider the idea of putting more effort into your verbal output,
since I might take it upon myself to ask stupider and stupider
questions about your seemingly pointless rants until I understand what
you are ineptly saying or you are driven the rest of the way mad.
Echosyn
>
>
> >Yer 180 degrees off course thre, mate. In the beginning there was the
> >Word.
>
> >-Echosyn
>
> Well I can't figure you out. You spew volumninosity to no purpose.
> You yakk about undescribed plant genetics experiments which presumably
> have undescribed results. You wave around the penis of esotericism as
> a flag. Yet in the end, you give the appearance of contradicting
> yourself.
>
> This is a writing group. Despite the opinion of some I am not its
> sole idiot. Write for fools or continue to be misunderstood.
> Google up "berkeley's immaterialsm". Discount the fact that he was a
> bishop thus committed to certain assumptions by concepts he could not
> permit himself to consider. Or, not.
>
> Consider the idea of putting more effort into your verbal output,
> since I might take it upon myself to ask stupider and stupider
> questions about your seemingly pointless rants until I understand what
> you are ineptly saying or you are driven the rest of the way mad.
>
> --
> Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
>
Recall Diogenes who sought honorable people. I too seek honorable
people who are rightly educated and solidly grounded in the natural
sciences. I speak in mathematically correct symbolism that is received
by those with intelligence and a well-founded education. "The
symbols of the wise are the idols of the indolent." -Albert Pike;
mathematics is all symbolism. Then there's Aesop.
At work I teach work ethics, efficiency and industrial and commercial
building maintenance and engineering trades to young and old. I
design and install electrical distribution systems, repair anything
that needs it, and improve bad OEM design. One of my recreations is
inventing utilitarian equipment that improves efficiency and
performance. I am civically active in environmental preservation,
pollution control, crime watch, charities, providing free home repair
to the elderly, and helping the homeless. There is no place on my
calendar for spectator sports, sit-coms, fads and slothful parasites
who crib rather than study and who want something for nothing.
Getting back to squares, circles and nested solids, these are symbols,
visible representations of reality that is seen in the mind, soul and
spirit. How would you respond if you were awakened by a vivid dream
at 2 AM, sat up in bed with eyes wide open, and the dream continued
as a vision like watching a movie. If that dream scene was composed
of classic symbols from history and math that told a story would you
give it your own interpretation and dismiss it? Do you want sybols
for Phi, the Golden Mean, 1.6180339--- and its reflexion .6180339?
Google up "Fibonacci progression". There's Helianthus, chambered
nautilus, rabbit proliferation, Mandelbrot sets, magnetic fields
elemental interactions, etc. For me the Golden Section is a Swiss
Army Knife for problem solving.
In the spirit of the One who gave us Christmas I forgive you for
recklessly insulting me and besmirching your character.
Echosyn
Deist gentleman grade 11
boots
>
>>
>>
>> >Yer 180 degrees off course thre, mate. In the beginning there was the
>> >Word.
>>
>> >-Echosyn
>>
>> Well I can't figure you out. You spew volumninosity to no purpose.
>> You yakk about undescribed plant genetics experiments which presumably
>> have undescribed results. You wave around the penis of esotericism as
>> a flag. Yet in the end, you give the appearance of contradicting
>> yourself.
>>
>> This is a writing group. Despite the opinion of some I am not its
>> sole idiot. Write for fools or continue to be misunderstood.
>> Google up "berkeley's immaterialsm". Discount the fact that he was a
>> bishop thus committed to certain assumptions by concepts he could not
>> permit himself to consider. Or, not.
>>
>> Consider the idea of putting more effort into your verbal output,
>> since I might take it upon myself to ask stupider and stupider
>> questions about your seemingly pointless rants until I understand what
>> you are ineptly saying or you are driven the rest of the way mad.
>>
>> --
>> Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
>>
>>" [superstitious heathen grade 8]"
> By your own words you are justified or condemned.
>
>Recall Diogenes who sought honorable people. I too seek honorable
>people
May you attain better results than Diogenes.
> who are rightly educated and solidly grounded in the natural
>sciences.
Oops, mutual exclusivity alert!
> I speak in mathematically correct symbolism that is received
>by those with intelligence and a well-founded education.
Pardon me, but I have refused to accept proper indoctrination on the
grounds that experience has proven it to be an incorrect view
promulgated to snare rubes for shearing.
> "The
>symbols of the wise are the idols of the indolent." -Albert Pike;
>mathematics is all symbolism. Then there's Aesop.
Reality is symbolism, deal.
>At work I teach work ethics, efficiency and industrial and commercial
>building maintenance and engineering trades to young and old. I
>design and install electrical distribution systems, repair anything
>that needs it, and improve bad OEM design. One of my recreations is
>inventing utilitarian equipment that improves efficiency and
>performance. I am civically active in environmental preservation,
>pollution control, crime watch, charities, providing free home repair
>to the elderly, and helping the homeless. There is no place on my
>calendar for spectator sports, sit-coms, fads and slothful parasites
>who crib rather than study and who want something for nothing.
I hope your resume' helps you find employment by an honorable master.
>Getting back to squares, circles and nested solids, these are symbols,
>visible representations of reality that is seen in the mind, soul and
>spirit. How would you respond if you were awakened by a vivid dream
>at 2 AM, sat up in bed with eyes wide open, and the dream continued
>as a vision like watching a movie.
Welcome to planet Earth.
> If that dream scene was composed
>of classic symbols from history and math that told a story would you
>give it your own interpretation and dismiss it?
I would consider it as the day progressed.
> Do you want sybols
>for Phi, the Golden Mean, 1.6180339--- and its reflexion .6180339?
>Google up "Fibonacci progression". There's Helianthus, chambered
>nautilus, rabbit proliferation, Mandelbrot sets, magnetic fields
>elemental interactions, etc. For me the Golden Section is a Swiss
>Army Knife for problem solving.
It's good to have a problem solving method that works.
>In the spirit of the One who gave us Christmas
You're making me larf. Are you referring to the egoist who was
impaled for shooting off his yap and whose followers have duped
billions into limiting their communication with God to that allowed by
a fabricated middleman? Sorry, Christmas is a pagan holiday that was
taken over by money-changers and should be renamed "Merchant's Day".
> I forgive you for
>recklessly insulting me
That you felt insult from an expression of my thought as provoked by
your "writing" is unfortunate, and that you have forgiven yourself
that error is laudable.
> and besmirching your character.
Who besmirched whose character here? This is a writing group,
remember that, illiterate one? If you can't keep your personal
pronouns straight for long enough to type a sentence, does that shed
some light of clarity on your ramblings that is not obvious?
>Echosyn
>
>Deist gentleman grade 11
There is no grade 11, lookit the chart:
http://www.boltdepot.com/fastener-information/Materials-and-Grades/Bolt-Grade-Chart.aspx
While you're at it look at the symbolism in the grade-8 markings, I'm
sure you'll find it entertaining since you're a math goof.
I apply scientific method to every aspect of my waking life and
honestly call that "superstition" for in the final analysis the past
is no predictor of the future.
I am not a "Christian" for although I find many truths in the words
attributed to Jesus of Nazereth there is no church or religion that I
have been able to uncover that has not perverted them for the benefit
of their bureaucracies. As an "unconverted" person who will never
accept the idea that I must use a bogus middleman concocted from the
twisting of Jesus' sayings to communicate with God, I honestly admit
that I am a heathen.
That you were ignorant of what the word "heathen" means, thinking it
to mean "godless" rather than "unconverted" and thinking to better me
by calling yourself a deist, marks you as a fool. That you think
there is a difference between "superstition" and "scientific method"
marks you as a follower of your proper indoctrination. That you think
to outdo me by calling yourself "grade 11" when there is no grade-11
shows you to be an idiot playing games for the sake of his ego.
All of which I will gladly forgive if you simply begin writing so that
your fellow retards can understand your meaning.
Echosyn
>
> While you're at it look at the symbolism in the grade-8 markings, I'm
> sure you'll find it entertaining since you're a math goof.
>
> I apply scientific method to every aspect of my waking life and
> honestly call that "superstition" for in the final analysis the past
> is no predictor of the future.
>
> I am not a "Christian" for although I find many truths in the words
> attributed to Jesus of Nazereth there is no church or religion that I
> have been able to uncover that has not perverted them for the benefit
> of their bureaucracies. As an "unconverted" person who will never
> accept the idea that I must use a bogus middleman concocted from the
> twisting of Jesus' sayings to communicate with God, I honestly admit
> that I am a heathen.
>
> That you were ignorant of what the word "heathen" means, thinking it
> to mean "godless" rather than "unconverted" and thinking to better me
> by calling yourself a deist, marks you as a fool. That you think
> there is a difference between "superstition" and "scientific method"
> marks you as a follower of your proper indoctrination. That you think
> to outdo me by calling yourself "grade 11" when there is no grade-11
> shows you to be an idiot playing games for the sake of his ego.
>
> All of which I will gladly forgive if you simply begin writing so that
> your fellow retards can understand your meaning.
>
> --
> Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
>
> [superstitious heathen grade 8]
Thanks for the bolt chart, Boots. I printed it for making multiple
copies to use in my training classes. You, as with Zero, have no
basis in reality.
Towse
> ...
"Everything starts from a dot." — Wassily Kandinsky
(Happy birthday! Wassily Kandinsky born on this date in 1866.)
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Ray Haddad
>"Everything starts from a dot." — Wassily Kandinsky
>
>(Happy birthday! Wassily Kandinsky born on this date in 1866.)
I'm fairly certain Wassily is dead now.
--
Ray
boots
>Thanks for the bolt chart, Boots. I printed it for making multiple
>copies to use in my training classes.
I did not give you a bolt chart, and if you print the chart at the url
I posted it is highly recommended that you remain cognizant of
potential copyright issues.
> You, as with Zero,
I don't know from Zero, I am not Zero.
> have no basis in reality.
Yes, my basis is outside of material reality, as your own might be if
you were not hopelessly ensnared in its meaningless details. The
first rule of any carnival is never let the rubes see what is going
on, and the basis of prestidigitation is to confuse the viewer.
It's a magical world, welcome to the circus; admission is free, the
exit fee charged at the door may be significant.
Kurt Ullman
Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
<Obligatory Monte Python Reference>
He's just pinin' for the fjords.
</Obligatory Monte Python Reference>
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > ...
>
> "Everything starts from a dot." — Wassily Kandinsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Kandinsky#Point_and_line_to_plane
> (Happy birthday! Wassily Kandinsky born on this date in 1866.)
according to wikipedia:
Died 13 December 1944 (aged 77)
three days short of a perfect 78.
-$Zero...
well, first you'd have to explain how something that has
absolutely no shape can be thought of as existing in the
first place. if infinity truly has no shape, perhaps it's
nothing but a big scam.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/90e73e87af7cab4e