the best thing about being a writer -- part XXXVIIII
$Zero
fudging stuff.
it's knowing when to fudge it.
it's knowing when to stop investing your time to get "the perfect
answer" when you have an answer that will do just as well as the
potential "perfect" one.
...
for instance, while doing a bit of research about how to write "part
39" using Roman Numerals, you discover that the time you're investing
has gone well over budget.
because, while you have quickly verified that your hunch in writing 40
as XL was indeed correct, the stuff you found did not necessarily
explicitly spell out how one should write 39.
because when you conceived of a logical choice:
IXL
(while potentially not knowing enough about the rules), you realized
that it could be dreadfully wrong.
for instance, while one might leap to the idea that with IXL you would
first subtract 10 (X) from 50 (L) thus yielding 40 (XL) and then
subtract 1 (I) from that, thus yielding 39, you also realized that
there was another possible reading of IXL.
because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
which is no good as far as representing "part 39".
of course, there was always the possibility of using: XIL
which seems to work no matter how you group the subtractions...
but that would have been too easy.
so you fudge it instead.
because time is way more precious than being perfect all the time.
-$Zero...
the best thing about being a writer -- part XXXVIII
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/484554f5787fcb14
danger...@gmail.com
> because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
> that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
> confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
> subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
Meanwhile, all the centurians will point and laugh at you.
DB
danger...@gmail.com
Except, at the time Roman numerals were in use, there was no concept
of Zero.
DB
Ray Haddad
If only.
--
Ray
$Zero
because i have the Biggest Dickest?
or because:
> > subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
should have been:
> > subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (XLI).
next post, we'll talk cock.
and Monty Python.
-$Zero...
it's knowing when to fudge it.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd5d0e47f28b16a7
$Zero
actually, they did, apparently.
they called it nulla or some such.
they just didn't include it with their maths, much.
read that yesterday on dictionary.com in the reference section
somewhere.
-$Zero...
it's knowing when to stop investing your time to get
"the perfect answer" when you have an answer that will
do just as well as the potential "perfect" one.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd5d0e47f28b16a7
Alan Hope
>because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
>that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
>confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
>subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
LOL. "Logically". That's a laugh.
Give it up. You don't know how Roman numerals work, and you're too
ignorant to look it up. Bringing your sort of logic to the problem is
like bringing a bucket of water to fix a dripping tap.
Ray Haddad
Must be his 2500 year old theory of Unicornian Roman Numerals.
--
Ray
Alan Hope
Fuck off, Haddad. I don't want you hanging around me. You're human
scum and I'm not on your side, okay?
Ray Haddad
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ray Haddad goes:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 00:45:59 +0200, Alan Hope
>><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>$Zero goes:
>>>
>>>>because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
>>>>that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
>>>>confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
>>>>subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
>>>
>>>LOL. "Logically". That's a laugh.
>>>
>>>Give it up. You don't know how Roman numerals work, and you're too
>>>ignorant to look it up. Bringing your sort of logic to the problem is
>>>like bringing a bucket of water to fix a dripping tap.
>>
>>Must be his 2500 year old theory of Unicornian Roman Numerals.
>
>Fuck off, Haddad. I don't want you hanging around me. You're human
>scum and I'm not on your side, okay?
So why did you answer? Never mind. Everyone knows why.
--
Ray
Alan Hope
>On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:11:09 +0200, Alan Hope
><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ray Haddad goes:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 00:45:59 +0200, Alan Hope
>>><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>$Zero goes:
>>>>
>>>>>because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
>>>>>that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
>>>>>confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
>>>>>subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
>>>>
>>>>LOL. "Logically". That's a laugh.
>>>>
>>>>Give it up. You don't know how Roman numerals work, and you're too
>>>>ignorant to look it up. Bringing your sort of logic to the problem is
>>>>like bringing a bucket of water to fix a dripping tap.
>>>
>>>Must be his 2500 year old theory of Unicornian Roman Numerals.
>>
>>Fuck off, Haddad. I don't want you hanging around me. You're human
>>scum and I'm not on your side, okay?
>
>So why did you answer?
To slap you down.
>Never mind. Everyone knows why.
Yes they do.
Ray Haddad
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ray Haddad goes:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:11:09 +0200, Alan Hope
>><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ray Haddad goes:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 00:45:59 +0200, Alan Hope
>>>><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>$Zero goes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
>>>>>>that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
>>>>>>confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
>>>>>>subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL. "Logically". That's a laugh.
>>>>>
>>>>>Give it up. You don't know how Roman numerals work, and you're too
>>>>>ignorant to look it up. Bringing your sort of logic to the problem is
>>>>>like bringing a bucket of water to fix a dripping tap.
>>>>
>>>>Must be his 2500 year old theory of Unicornian Roman Numerals.
>>>
>>>Fuck off, Haddad. I don't want you hanging around me. You're human
>>>scum and I'm not on your side, okay?
>>
>>So why did you answer?
>
>To slap you down.
Ah, then you have a glimmering why I address you here. It handily
proves you are the biggest knucklehead here. Well done, Alan.
>>Never mind. Everyone knows why.
>
>Yes they do.
Because you just can't help yourself. You've no self control, Alan.
Deal.
--
Ray
gekko
Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> Well done, Alan.
D'oh! You got snagged by the wily Ray once again, Hopey. Bwahahahahaha!
--
gekko
"There are two major products to come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
Ray Haddad
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <ssmj15d7tu2kklh8h...@4ax.com>,
> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>> Well done, Alan.
>
>D'oh! You got snagged by the wily Ray once again, Hopey. Bwahahahahaha!
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure you're not on my hook along with him?
--
Ray
Alan Hope
>On Mon, 25 May 2009 01:20:34 +0200, Alan Hope
><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ray Haddad goes:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:11:09 +0200, Alan Hope
>>><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ray Haddad goes:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 May 2009 00:45:59 +0200, Alan Hope
>>>>><usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>$Zero goes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>because one might also tend to think that in case of Roman Numeral IXL
>>>>>>>that you could also reasonably conceive of the possibility that when
>>>>>>>confronted with Roman Numeral IXL one might logically choose to
>>>>>>>subtract 9 (IX) from 50 (L) thus getting 41 (LI).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL. "Logically". That's a laugh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Give it up. You don't know how Roman numerals work, and you're too
>>>>>>ignorant to look it up. Bringing your sort of logic to the problem is
>>>>>>like bringing a bucket of water to fix a dripping tap.
>>>>>
>>>>>Must be his 2500 year old theory of Unicornian Roman Numerals.
>>>>
>>>>Fuck off, Haddad. I don't want you hanging around me. You're human
>>>>scum and I'm not on your side, okay?
>>>
>>>So why did you answer?
>>
>>To slap you down.
>
>Ah, then you have a glimmering why I address you here.
Yes, because a slap-down is the best you can get anywhere, but it's
better than nothing.
Alan Hope
Ray Haddad
Stan
news:i1ek15dc26ajivnat...@4ax.com:
For those of you who have forgotten or who are new here and wondering
why he's being shown such contempt by respectable participants of this
ng, allow me to explain:
This piece of shit, Ray Haddad, is the repulsive scum who has bragged
about his relationship with an 11-yr old (or 14-yr old, depending on
whose math you accept) girl, a relationship most normal adults would,
based on his description alone, consider inappropriate at the very
least. In addition to whatever else may have occurred between them, he
has written about how he provided the means for her to participate in a
mostly adult usenet ng and then encouraged other adults to bother her,
while admitting she was too young for such attention.
Ray "scum-boy" Haddad is also well known to be a liar, so it's possible
everything he wrote about this little girl was a complete fabrication
designed to give him an edge in one of his many, many usenet arguments.
Nevertheless, he has insisted that every word he has written here has
been the truth, and he has claimed the relationship he described with
that little girl was perfectly appropriate. So, either he's telling the
truth about his disgusting relationship with that little girl or he's
lying about it, but defends an inappropriate relationship between an
adult male and an 11-yr old (or 14-yr old) girl as acceptable. Whichever
it is, he's a nauseating piece of shit who should *never* be allowed
near little girls.
And this doesn't even touch upon his absurd attempts at valor thievery.
All can be found in full context in the archive.
So, newbies beware of this scum. MIGs, don't forget.
--
Stan
Ray Haddad
wrote:
You never learn, do you?
--
Ray
gekko
Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:02:21 -0700, gekko
> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >In article <ssmj15d7tu2kklh8h...@4ax.com>,
> > Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well done, Alan.
> >
> >D'oh! You got snagged by the wily Ray once again, Hopey. Bwahahahahaha!
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> Are you sure you're not on my hook along with him?
Is that how your dreams play out, then?
Ray Haddad
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <r91k15tmmge8hk93e...@4ax.com>,
> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:02:21 -0700, gekko
>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ssmj15d7tu2kklh8h...@4ax.com>,
>> > Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well done, Alan.
>> >
>> >D'oh! You got snagged by the wily Ray once again, Hopey. Bwahahahahaha!
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>> Are you sure you're not on my hook along with him?
>
>Is that how your dreams play out, then?
Sorry. Couldn't understand you with that hook in your lip.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 May 2009 18:56:50 -0700, gekko
><ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>In article <r91k15tmmge8hk93e...@4ax.com>,
>> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:02:21 -0700, gekko
>>> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <ssmj15d7tu2kklh8h...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Well done, Alan.
>>> >
>>> >D'oh! You got snagged by the wily Ray once again, Hopey. Bwahahahahaha!
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>> Are you sure you're not on my hook along with him?
>>
>>Is that how your dreams play out, then?
>
>Sorry. Couldn't understand you with that hook in your lip.
50c says you snip the last 6 words in your reply.
--
Ray