Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate progressives

[deep]

Nothing but another hate freak, spewing his sociopathic garbage, and
always running and hiding behind a killfile because he's not smart
enough to be able to carry on a decent logical argument. Another
conservative that is nothing but a pathetic excuse for a human being.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Poor Dudu. Hiding behind his *own* kill file, afraid to debate the
facts.

Instead of "debating," he spews psychopathic garbage, like this:

Deep Dudu's Dark Descent into Dementia....

"In reality, I'm trying to save you all."
Message-ID: <7fhop7lrt9rjpuhtf...@4ax.com>

�I'm a pacifist. I abhor violence.�
Message-ID: <n2kl37pj735iq9ain...@4ax.com>

"Email me a photograph of your face. I will put a round through each
eyeball and one between your front teeth, scan it in and email it back
to you."
Message-ID: <7jd0d7tbu7sm3th4j...@4ax.com>

�Maybe we should just sit back and watch the idiots kill each other.�
Message-ID: <4e78698a...@text.giganews.com>

�You are one sick fucking bastard. Get some help you freak. Why
don't you just eat your gun. It's not like anybody would care if you
blew the top of your head off. Not like anything worthwhile would be
lost.�
Message-ID: <a8umd7ttsok7l2bfn...@4ax.com>

�I would buy you a gun for Christmas if it had a bad slide that shot
back and blew your worthless head off.�
Message-ID: <mietd7hsh8ap0lr42...@4ax.com>

�If you people don't fucking wise up soon we are going to have to
start shooting you."
Message-ID: <v1e8r6pijl5btcjas...@4ax.com>

�Best part of when we become a communist country is we will get to
line trash like you up against a wall and shoot you.�
Message-ID: <l4dqc7l9s4fqk35rn...@4ax.com>

"I didn't say I was a communist. But I will volunteer for the firing
squad to shoot your ignorant ass."
� Schei�ekopf "Deep Dudu", Wed, 23 Nov 2011

"Frag your CO for freedom."
Message-ID: <6ul9m7dgmo87jjrla...@4ax.com>

"I said shut the fuck up. ...You are clearly and out of touch with
reality raving lunatic. So shut up now. Euthanasia is not far away
in your future." -Lagerf�hrerin Deep Dudu
Message-ID: <gtpmn7dprv625b0d5...@4ax.com>

"Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid. It's so good for the
planet and the species that you all are going to be dead soon."
-Deep "Spreading the Love" Dudu May 28, 2012

"You're a fucking raving lunatic. Why don't you go for the grape
Koolaid now and beat the rush and do everyone in the world a favor?"
Message-ID: <br6238tv291ip0851...@4ax.com>

Big bulldozed pits are a better place for conservatives though.
Message-ID: <upin98td6j3nnqkib...@4ax.com>

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate
progressives

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Wed, May 22, 2013, 6:58am (EDT-2) From:
deep

===================

Before you can debate anyone, DooDoo, you first have to learn how to
count.

--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."--

Frank Zappa--

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:19:08 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh
ProAmerica) wrote:

>
>Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate
>progressives
>
>Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Wed, May 22, 2013, 6:58am (EDT-2) From:
>deep
>Nothing but another hate freak, spewing his sociopathic garbage, and
>always running and hiding behind a killfile because he's not smart
>enough to be able to carry on a decent logical argument. Another
>conservative that is nothing but a pathetic excuse for a human being.
>
>===================
>
>Before you can debate anyone, DooDoo, you first have to learn how to
>count.

Ouch.

What's funnier- that Dudu doesn't know how to count, or that he keeps
insisting that he does?

___________
"Nobody "collects" 20 ARs. they are either trafficking to criminals
or building an insurrection army."

-Montana Costco Stew Militia
Col. D. Dudu, Commander
04.17.2013

[deep]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:19:08 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh
ProAmerica) wrote:

>

>Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate
>progressives
>
>Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Wed, May 22, 2013, 6:58am (EDT-2) From:
>deep
>Nothing but another hate freak, spewing his sociopathic garbage, and
>always running and hiding behind a killfile because he's not smart
>enough to be able to carry on a decent logical argument. Another
>conservative that is nothing but a pathetic excuse for a human being.
>
>===================
>
>Before you can debate anyone, DooDoo, you first have to learn how to
>count.

HAHAHAHAHAHAA

000
001
010
011
100
101
110
111
1000

Seeing a pattern here numbnuts?

snicker...

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Yep. You have no idea how to count, and you prove it in every post you
talk about it.

That's the pattern everyone is seeing.

Find Year 0 yet?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:19:08 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh
ProAmerica) wrote:

>

>Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate
>progressives
>
>Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Wed, May 22, 2013, 6:58am (EDT-2) From:
>deep
>Nothing but another hate freak, spewing his sociopathic garbage, and
>always running and hiding behind a killfile because he's not smart
>enough to be able to carry on a decent logical argument. Another
>conservative that is nothing but a pathetic excuse for a human being.
>
>===================
>
>Before you can debate anyone, DooDoo, you first have to learn how to
>count.

Decades in the Real World

DECADE 1
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10

DECADE 2
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year 20

Decades in Dudu's Fantasy World

DECADE 1
Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9

DECADE 2
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19

"After the discovery of the Hindu/Arabic numeral system everyone with
an education figured out the millenium [sic] will be considered to run
from x000 to x999."
-Counting Expert Dudu, Inventor of Year Zero

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:ullpp8djhl94c6788...@4ax.com...

####
I see that you are patterned after a retard!

Where's your ZERO FINGER, you retard?
Where's your ZERO DAY, you retard?
NOBODY is denying that "Zero" doesn't exist, you retard with a filter!
But even "TEN" (10) begins with a "1", followed by the symbol "0", you
retard!
Let's do it again!

You claim to be a normal" progressive "man, right?
Count the functional penises you have attached to you!

Is it zero? Which means you are not a normal man?
Or do you have one, like ALL normal men?

It's so sad that a plebe like you is so fixated on NOT admitting that you
could EVER be proven wrong or simply mistaken so often, that you have to
"keep your lie alive" to save the ugly face you have, and make the most
extreme stump stupid excuses that even YOU can't define!

I loved that one where you said that thing about the closest nation to
Libya! That was classic!

[STEADY EDDY]

On May 22, 5:59 am, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Message-ID: <6ul9m7dgmo87jjrlae0mkpjuhk3ocqc...@4ax.com>

>
> "I said shut the fuck up. ...You are clearly and out of touch with
> reality raving lunatic.  So shut up now.  Euthanasia is not far away
> in your future." -Lagerf hrerin Deep Dudu

> Message-ID: <gtpmn7dprv625b0d5qk7o2v0pkcd8uv...@4ax.com>

>
> "Jesus Christ you people are fucking stupid.  It's so good for the
> planet and the species that you all are going to be dead soon."
>               -Deep "Spreading the Love" Dudu May 28, 2012
>
> "You're a fucking raving lunatic.  Why don't you go for the grape
> Koolaid now and beat the rush and do everyone in the world a favor?"

> Message-ID: <br6238tv291ip0851q035kglcbuej5t...@4ax.com>

>
>  Big bulldozed pits are a better place for conservatives though.

> Message-ID: <upin98td6j3nnqkibf1h7c6jab0t9r0...@4ax.com>

Good work Shitzenpantsenfartz. I notice you quit referencing your DuDu
adoration website. Now you give us direct quotes. You are a sick fuck
pal.

[deep]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT), STEADY EDDY
<steady...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Good work Shitzenpantsenfartz. I notice you quit referencing your DuDu
>adoration website. Now you give us direct quotes. You are a sick fuck
>pal.

Yep. He's one of the sickest, most bitter hate freaks I've ever run
across. Just ignore him like I do. He's not worth the time try to
give a reality check to. He never gets it anyway.

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:t8rpp89u37ng9ddl7...@4ax.com...

####

Considering that Unstedeady Eddy called YOU a freak that should be ignored ,
you are now a larger retard than seen before!
How Smurphy!
Now you two are lovers in arms, and CAN'T EXPLAIN THE LOSS OF "LOOKOUT!"

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2rlpp81bd9s2lsv43...@4ax.com...

Sorry, I have to make a correction here.

>DECADE 0 (Corrected for accuracy)

>The year that doesn't exist which Dudu claims would be zero if there were
>actually a year here. (corrected for accuracy)

> Year 1
> Year 2
> Year 3
> Year 4
> Year 5
> Year 6
> Year 7
> Year 8
> Year 9
>

> DECADE 1 (Corrected for accuracy)

> Year 10
> Year 11
> Year 12
> Year 13
> Year 14
> Year 15
> Year 16
> Year 17
> Year 18
> Year 19
>
> "After the discovery of the Hindu/Arabic numeral system everyone with
> an education figured out the millenium [sic] will be considered to run
> from x000 to x999."
> -Counting Expert Dudu, Inventor of Year Zero

Which means at according to Dudu's calendar we are now in the Zeroth Century
of the 2nd Millennium according to Dudu.

Meanwhile everyone else says this is the first century of the 3rd
Millennium.

I suppose Dudu will also celebrate the next new year's on 0/0/2014?

[RosemontCrest]

According to Dudu's counting method, that would be 0/0/2013.

[Scout]

"RosemontCrest" <rosemontcres...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:knk165$prc$1...@dont-email.me...

Correction noted

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 10:08:43 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT), STEADY EDDY
><steady...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Good work Shitzenpantsenfartz. I notice you quit referencing your DuDu
>>adoration website. Now you give us direct quotes. You are a sick fuck
>>pal.
>
>Yep. He's one of the sickest, most bitter hate freaks I've ever run
>across.

TRANSLATION: Dudu has never been able to win an argument against Klaus
so now Dudu just hides.


LOL

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

That's correct.

>Meanwhile everyone else says this is the first century of the 3rd
>Millennium.
>
>I suppose Dudu will also celebrate the next new year's on 0/0/2014?

He will watch for fireworks. That's the only way he knows when to
celebrate.

[deep]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:10:41 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:


>>> Meanwhile everyone else says this is the first century of the 3rd
>>> Millennium.
>>>
>>> I suppose Dudu will also celebrate the next new year's on 0/0/2014?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA. Fuck, you psychos are insane!

too funny

BTW, our DECIMAL number system is NOT based on a 2000 year old
calendar system.

>>
>> According to Dudu's counting method, that would be 0/0/2013.

Um, you stupid fucking morons, zero starts at midnight.

12:00 midnight is also 00:00 of the next day

One minute after midnight is 00:01

One hour after midnight is 01:00

One hour and one minute after midnight is 01:01

A computer starts counting at 000 in binary coded octal.

The next increment is 001, next increment is 010, then 011. A four
is 100

A child is not one year old when it's born. It's zero. At birth it's
00 years, 00 months, 00 hours, 00 minutes (when you start counting)

one minute later it's 00:00:00:01

one hour later it's 00:00:01:00

one month later it's 00:01:00:00

exactly one year from it's date:time of birth it's 01:00:00:00
also known as "one year old"

Seeing a pattern here dumbasses?

No, I suppose not.

>
>Correction noted
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

God I love it when you dumbshits just insist on perpetuating a mistake
infinitely and just insisting on making fools of yourself. Too funny.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:01:06 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 00:10:41 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Meanwhile everyone else says this is the first century of the 3rd
>>>> Millennium.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose Dudu will also celebrate the next new year's on 0/0/2014?
>
>HAHAHAHAHAAAAA. Fuck, you psychos are insane!
>
>too funny
>
>BTW, our DECIMAL number system is NOT based on a 2000 year old
>calendar system.

Once again for Dudu's Short Attention Span......

We're talking about counting.

Want to regroup and try again?

>>> According to Dudu's counting method, that would be 0/0/2013.
>
>Um, you stupid fucking morons, zero starts at midnight.
>
>12:00 midnight is also 00:00 of the next day
>
>One minute after midnight is 00:01
>
>One hour after midnight is 01:00
>
>One hour and one minute after midnight is 01:01
>
>A computer starts counting at 000 in binary coded octal.
>
>The next increment is 001, next increment is 010, then 011. A four
>is 100
>
>A child is not one year old when it's born. It's zero. At birth it's
>00 years, 00 months, 00 hours, 00 minutes (when you start counting)
>
>one minute later it's 00:00:00:01
>
>one hour later it's 00:00:01:00
>
>one month later it's 00:01:00:00
>
>exactly one year from it's date:time of birth it's 01:00:00:00
>also known as "one year old"
>
>Seeing a pattern here dumbasses?
>
>No, I suppose not.
>
>>
>>Correction noted
>>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
>
>God I love it when you dumbshits just insist on perpetuating a mistake
>infinitely and just insisting on making fools of yourself. Too funny.

And we love it when you completely avoid the subject at hand. It's OK,
though. We ALREADY have your quote that decades end in a "9."

LOL

Once more for Dudu............

Decades in the Real World

DECADE 1
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10

DECADE 2
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year 20

Decades in Dudu's Fantasy World

DECADE 1
Year 0

Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9

DECADE 2

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:n24sp81tfkpca66fj...@4ax.com...

Then he's in for a disappointment because that doesn't happen until 1/1/2014

Over a month later according to his calendar.

[deep]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:26:46 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>Then he's in for a disappointment because that doesn't happen until 1/1/2014
>
>Over a month later according to his calendar.
>

You cretins do realize that everyone in the world celebrated the
millenium on 1/1/2000, right?

It would seem that the entire world, everyone but you that is, knows
that we start counting at zero.

Fucking hilarious. I love it when you retards just keep on going, on
and on and on with your idiocy.

An absolute fucking hoot.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 05:42:36 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:26:46 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Then he's in for a disappointment because that doesn't happen until 1/1/2014
>>
>>Over a month later according to his calendar.
>>
>You cretins do realize that everyone in the world celebrated the
>millenium on 1/1/2000, right?

You know I already proved you wrong on that, right?

>It would seem that the entire world, everyone but you that is, knows
>that we start counting at zero.

You're wrong again. But of course, you can ALWAYS demonstrate how that
could possibly happen without a Year Zero....


We're waiting.................



>Fucking hilarious.

It *is* isn't it? You keep trying to shriek about how decades begin in
a year ending with a zero yet you can't find Year Zero for us.

>I love it when you retards just keep on going, on
>and on and on with your idiocy.
>An absolute fucking hoot.

TRANSLATION: Aren't these guys EVER going to forget Dudu's lies?


http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
Deep Dudu's FORTRESS OF LIES
Now With Over 350 Documented
Lies, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Distortions, and Deceptions!

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate pr...

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Wed, May 22, 2013, 8:32am (EDT-2) From:
deep

===================

Yeah.

You can't even count properly in binary.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Dudu STILL can't count.......

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Fri, May 24, 2013, 5:42am (EDT-2) From:
deep

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:26:46 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Then he's in for a disappointment because that doesn't happen until
1/1/2014
Over a month later according to his calendar.
You cretins do realize that everyone in the world celebrated the
millenium on 1/1/2000, right?

=======================

Not every one, DooDoo. Many of us knew the FIRST year of the new decade/
century/ millenium was 2001.

Unless you can show us a year zero, your miilenium runs from 1 to 999.
That's only 999 years, dipshit. The LAST year of the first millenium
(1000 yars) was... 1000.
The last year of the second millenium was... 2000.
------------------------------

It would seem that the entire world, everyone but you that is, knows
that we start counting at zero.
Fucking hilarious. I love it when you retards just keep on going, on and
on and on with your idiocy.
An absolute fucking hoot.

[deep]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 12:37:25 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh

Bullshit. You're a fucking liar. You don't know how binary works
then. You even know what binary coded octal is?

No, of course you don't. Obviously.

[Ivan Bodley]

"deep" wrote in message news:dk9vp8hq02l662v7n...@4ax.com...

####

DooDoo STILL thinks that there is a YEAR ONE!
And, he filters everyone!

[Scout]

"Ivan Bodley" <bas...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:519fae3d$0$20194$607e...@cv.net...

Actually he's right. For a 3 bit standard binary.... the count would be.

000
001
010
011
100
101
110
111

000 <----- note that the count starts to repeat.

A 4th bit doesn't magically appear simply because you filled up the
register.

> You even know what binary coded octal is?

In this case your question is just your attempt to change the subject.

> No, of course you don't. Obviously.

Why? Because he's right and you're wrong?

> ####
>
> DooDoo STILL thinks that there is a YEAR ONE!
> And, he filters everyone!

Correction : I think you meant to say Year Zero.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Betweenthecheeks dumping his shit here, but afraid to debate pr...

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Fri, May 24, 2013, 11:45am (EDT-2) From:
deep

=======================

It doesn't mater if you're talking about binary, standard octal,
binary-coded octal or hexadecimal, YOU DO NOT START COUNTING AT ZERO.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knogfd$76i$1...@dont-email.me:

Which is the binary coded octal Dudu mentioned.

the count would
> be.
>
> 000
> 001
> 010
> 011
> 100
> 101
> 110
> 111
> 000 <----- note that the count starts to repeat.
>
> A 4th bit doesn't magically appear simply because you filled up the
> register.

It needs an 8's position register. Just like Hex uses a four position
register (and some alpha characters, but, I digress).

>> You even know what binary coded octal is?
>
> In this case your question is just your attempt to change the subject.
>
>> No, of course you don't. Obviously.
>
> Why? Because he's right and you're wrong?
>
>> ####
>>
>> DooDoo STILL thinks that there is a YEAR ONE!
>> And, he filters everyone!
>
> Correction : I think you meant to say Year Zero.
>
>
>

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[deep]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:20:56 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh

Idiot. Of course you do. Computers do, and they're just automated
counting machines. Where do you start counting? One? If you start
at one how do you get all those infinite number of fractions between
zero and one? If you don't start counting at zero, why isn't a child
one year old when it's born?

shit, I just can't believe how utterly stupid and uneducated you
people are.

[deep]

Yep. It doesn't matter what base you're counting in, they all work
the same.

> the count would
>> be.
>>
>> 000
>> 001
>> 010
>> 011
>> 100
>> 101
>> 110
>> 111
>> 000 <----- note that the count starts to repeat.
>>
>> A 4th bit doesn't magically appear simply because you filled up the
>> register.
>
>It needs an 8's position register. Just like Hex uses a four position
>register (and some alpha characters, but, I digress).
>

The critical factor everybody seems to be missing is that the actual
numbers are an abstract point in space on a number line with zero
dimension. They are only marking off the end of and the number of the
increment. When you are counting you actually are counting the
INCREMENTS BETWEEN THE NUMBERS. That's why you have to start at zero.
When you actually get to one, you've counted the increment between
zero and one. Two is the increment between one and two, and so forth.
In any number base you could never get to the base value if you didn't
count the increment between zero and one. It's so obvious when you
look at a binary register that every number place you reset to zero
when you carry to the next place, and start counting again at zero. In
every value of two, or eight, or ten, or hex, or whatever base you
want. The all reset to zero when you carry a one and start counting
again. It's so simple, and so obvious.

>>> You even know what binary coded octal is?
>>
>> In this case your question is just your attempt to change the subject.
>>
>>> No, of course you don't. Obviously.
>>
>> Why? Because he's right and you're wrong?
>>
>>> ####
>>>
>>> DooDoo STILL thinks that there is a YEAR ONE!
>>> And, he filters everyone!
>>
>> Correction : I think you meant to say Year Zero.
>>

Idiot.

>>
>>

[deep]

Note that you're counting the increment between 111 and 000 and you
carry the one to give you an eighth increment. If you have another
bit you can store that eight as a one in 2^3. Look at any binary
register, or a digital register in any base, and it will prove I'm
right.

>A 4th bit doesn't magically appear simply because you filled up the
>register.
>
>> You even know what binary coded octal is?
>
>In this case your question is just your attempt to change the subject.
>
>> No, of course you don't. Obviously.
>
>Why? Because he's right and you're wrong?
>

No I'm not. He's a retard who knows nothing and will disagree with
anything. Just like you. Sandman understands it. Ask him if you
refuse to learn anything from me.

I notice you never answered the question why a child isn't 1 year old
when it's born. It's zero. And of course you will avoid that because
you can't explain it. Or you can't explain why every digital register
everywhere all reset to zero as you start counting again.

[Scout]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12798-519...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...

Actually, in computer code you regularly do start counting at zero. Since
you clear the register and then increment it with each 'count'.

Dudu's error was suddenly changing a 3 bit count to a 4 bit count. If it
were 4 bits, (a nibble) then the leading zero would have been indicated. If
it's 3 bits then from 111 it recycles back to 000

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1CA8F1A8...@216.196.121.131...

1) He mentioned BCD after his presentation and further there is nothing in
his presentation to indicate that he wasn't using standard binary counting.
It would thus qualify as a backpedal at the very least.

2) A BCD is a 4 BIT count from 0000 to 1001

If he meant a BCD count then his logic table is incorrect. Since 4 bit count
is ALWAYS shown as a 4 bit count. Not a 3 bit count that magically grows to
4 bits when your 3 bit logic table recycles. Further, even if we assume he
was talking BCD from the start then the "pattern" he would have you 'find'
from his example would result in an incorrect finding because after 1001 it
doesn't cycle to 1010 as his given 'pattern' would indicate but would
recycle back to 0000.

Na, cut it anyway you like, Dudu fucked it up yet again. Then probably lied
about it to try and cover it up.

> the count would
>> be.
>>
>> 000
>> 001
>> 010
>> 011
>> 100
>> 101
>> 110
>> 111
>> 000 <----- note that the count starts to repeat.
>>
>> A 4th bit doesn't magically appear simply because you filled up the
>> register.
>
> It needs an 8's position register.

If we are talking a 4 bit count. But he presented it as a 3 bit count. If we
have 4 bits then his count should have been given as:

0000
0001
0010
0011
Etc.

That is how you present a 4 bit count.

And a 3 bit count is often used since it translates EXACTLY to octal coding.
Just as hex is regularly used with a 4 bit counter.
Indeed BCD is just a broke dick hex counter.

Na, as I said, anyway you slice it Dudu screwed it up. As usual.

> Just like Hex uses a four position
> register (and some alpha characters, but, I digress).

True, but the size of his register magically increased in size at the end of
the first 3 bit cycle.

[deep]

!!!!!!!!

Well finally. Will wonders ever cease? I think Scout might finally
be getting it!

>Dudu's error was suddenly changing a 3 bit count to a 4 bit count. If it
>were 4 bits, (a nibble) then the leading zero would have been indicated. If
>it's 3 bits then from 111 it recycles back to 000

No, it's not an error, because as you increment from 111 to 000 that's
another increment. Your eighth to be exact. The fact that you might
not store that eight in another bit, doesn't mean you didn't add the
one to your seven. Drop the bit into the bit bucket, doesn't change
the fact that you counted eight increments from 000 to (1)000. That's
why they call it base eight, or octal.

You're counting the increments between the numbers. The numbers are
just abstract symbols so we can keep track of how many things we've
counted.

Get it yet?

[deep]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA. I never called it BCD, I called it binary coded
octal for an example of how you can count to eight in three bits. And
binary is binary numbnuts. It's just base two. Doesn't matter what
number system you're coding to binary. It's still binary.

>2) A BCD is a 4 BIT count from 0000 to 1001
>
>If he meant a BCD count then his logic table is incorrect. Since 4 bit count
>is ALWAYS shown as a 4 bit count. Not a 3 bit count that magically grows to
>4 bits when your 3 bit logic table recycles. Further, even if we assume he
>was talking BCD from the start then the "pattern" he would have you 'find'
>from his example would result in an incorrect finding because after 1001 it
>doesn't cycle to 1010 as his given 'pattern' would indicate but would
>recycle back to 0000.

Wow, you really don't have a clue what is going on do you? Only you
have mentioned binary coded decimal. I was showing you how you can
count to eight in 3 bits and why it wouldn't work if you didn't start
at zero.

>
>Na, cut it anyway you like, Dudu fucked it up yet again. Then probably lied
>about it to try and cover it up.
>

Fuck you dumbass. You're wrong. You can't even handle counting to
eight.

You don't even know why they use base eight in computers do you?

>> the count would
>>> be.
>>>
>>> 000
>>> 001
>>> 010
>>> 011
>>> 100
>>> 101
>>> 110
>>> 111
>>> 000 <----- note that the count starts to repeat.
>>>
>>> A 4th bit doesn't magically appear simply because you filled up the
>>> register.
>>
>> It needs an 8's position register.
>
>If we are talking a 4 bit count. But he presented it as a 3 bit count. If we
>have 4 bits then his count should have been given as:
>
>0000
>0001
>0010
>0011
>Etc.
>
>That is how you present a 4 bit count.

I was only talking about 3 bits you ass. You're just obfuscating now
so you don't have to admit I've been right all along.

>
>And a 3 bit count is often used since it translates EXACTLY to octal coding.

DUH!!!!!!!! That's why I used a 3 bit example. Only you started off
on coding decimal into binary.

>Just as hex is regularly used with a 4 bit counter.
>Indeed BCD is just a broke dick hex counter.
>
>Na, as I said, anyway you slice it Dudu screwed it up. As usual.
>

Nope. You don't even understand the question, let alone the answer.
You turned on the lie machine again though.

Hilarious. This is such an interesting phenomenon, watching you
idiots keep on insisting you're right when you are so obviously wrong.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knop0k$lj1$1...@dont-email.me:

However, I wasn't. See where I said "It needs an 8's position
register."? If it doesn't have one, it is an octal count not a decimal
one in the example shown.

But he presented it as a 3 bit count.
> If we have 4 bits then his count should have been given as:
>
> 0000
> 0001
> 0010
> 0011
> Etc.
>
> That is how you present a 4 bit count.

Yes, and is represented by hex (0 - F).

> And a 3 bit count is often used since it translates EXACTLY to octal
> coding. Just as hex is regularly used with a 4 bit counter."

Excuse me, but octal IS a three bit counter (Base 8) and hex IS a four
bit counter (Base 16) not just a numerical system often using them. Both
need conversion to represent decimal numbers (Base 10).

> Indeed BCD is just a broke dick hex counter.
>
> Na, as I said, anyway you slice it Dudu screwed it up. As usual.
>
>
>> Just like Hex uses a four position
>> register (and some alpha characters, but, I digress).
>
> True, but the size of his register magically increased in size at the
> end of the first 3 bit cycle.

That's true.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:lsqvp8hipob0si8u3...@4ax.com:

I believe you did. No, I am not going to go look it up.

> I called it binary coded
> octal for an example of how you can count to eight in three bits.

Interesting since I do remember you referring to binary coded decimal and
do not recall you referring to binary coded octal. I even wondered at
the time why simply didn't used the term "octal".

And
> binary is binary numbnuts. It's just base two. Doesn't matter what
> number system you're coding to binary. It's still binary.

That depends on what base you are coding in. Pure binary code gets
rather lengthy and it is easier to refer to it in hex.

[deep]

No, I did not. I called binary coded octal which is what it is when
you're talking about base eight coded in 3 binary bits.

>> I called it binary coded
>> octal for an example of how you can count to eight in three bits.
>
>Interesting since I do remember you referring to binary coded decimal and
>do not recall you referring to binary coded octal. I even wondered at
>the time why simply didn't used the term "octal".
>

No you don't remember that because I didn't. And octal is 0-7. Binary
coded octal is 000-111.

> And
>> binary is binary numbnuts. It's just base two. Doesn't matter what
>> number system you're coding to binary. It's still binary.
>
>That depends on what base you are coding in. Pure binary code gets
>rather lengthy and it is easier to refer to it in hex.

I was using octal as an example because it's so easily coded into 3
bit binary and it was a teaching aid to show Scout et al why you had
to start counting with zero and how you can get a count of eight into
3 bits.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

LOL He's right.

You have NO FUCKING IDEA how to count in binary.

Thanks for proving-- once again-- how hopelessly clueless you are.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:47:40 -0600, deep wrote:

>I notice you never answered the question why a child isn't 1 year old
>when it's born. It's zero.

And we all notice that you've never explained what happened to Year
Zero, which would be the only POSSIBLE explanation of how a decade
could begin in a year ending in zero.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

No, they don't.

Nonody and nothing starts counting at Zero.

Year Zero.

Where is it, boy?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:25:44 -0600, deep wrote:

>Get it yet?

You don't. There's no Year Zero.

But I *DO* love the fact that this subject will keep popping up for
the rest of your life, and you will run from it for the rest of your
life.

That's pretty cool.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1CAB0F11...@216.196.121.131...

Ok, which means that it's not the logic table for a BCD as Dudu asserted.

Looks like we're on the same page.

>
> But he presented it as a 3 bit count.
>> If we have 4 bits then his count should have been given as:
>>
>> 0000
>> 0001
>> 0010
>> 0011
>> Etc.
>>
>> That is how you present a 4 bit count.
>
> Yes, and is represented by hex (0 - F).

or 0-9 if it's BCD but you have to be told that since you can't tell the
difference from being given just the beginning logic as Dudu tried to
assert.

>> And a 3 bit count is often used since it translates EXACTLY to octal
>> coding. Just as hex is regularly used with a 4 bit counter."
>
> Excuse me, but octal IS a three bit counter (Base 8) and hex IS a four
> bit counter (Base 16) not just a numerical system often using them. Both
> need conversion to represent decimal numbers (Base 10).

Exactly. 3 bit is represented with octal and 4 bit with Hex (unless you're
using BCD)

>> Indeed BCD is just a broke dick hex counter.
>>
>> Na, as I said, anyway you slice it Dudu screwed it up. As usual.
>>
>>
>>> Just like Hex uses a four position
>>> register (and some alpha characters, but, I digress).
>>
>> True, but the size of his register magically increased in size at the
>> end of the first 3 bit cycle.
>
> That's true.

So Dudu tries to talk the talk....but as usual shows he really doesn't know
what he's trying to assert he's knowledgeable about.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:0dc1q89enkfo0hg0i...@4ax.com...

Actually, in this case Dudu is right. When you count in computer, you clear
the register (set to zero) and then increment with each count. So in this
case you really do start counting from zero because that is the initial
condition you have at the start of a count. Of course, how this changes how
PEOPLE count much less how our calendar works he can't explain. I'm sure he
will tell us how the ancient Romans used modern electronic computers to
calculate their calendars....

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:37:19 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0dc1q89enkfo0hg0i...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:05:46 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:20:56 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh
>>>ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>>Yeah.
>>>>You can't even count properly in binary.
>>>>Bullshit. You're a fucking liar. You don't know how binary works then.
>>>> You even know what binary coded octal is?
>>>>No, of course you don't. Obviously.
>>>>=======================
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't mater if you're talking about binary, standard octal,
>>>>binary-coded octal or hexadecimal, YOU DO NOT START COUNTING AT ZERO.
>>>
>>>Idiot. Of course you do. Computers do
>>
>> No, they don't.
>
>Actually, in this case Dudu is right. When you count in computer

Actually, when we instruct a computer to count years, it begins "Year
One, Year Two," etc. etc.

How it performs the task electronically isn't the issue, as Dudu
knows.

We're STILL waiting for Dudu to show us how any year ending in a "9"
could possibly be the end of the decade without the existence of a
"Year Zero."

He can't do it.

Because there is no such thing as "Year Zero."

Of course, he'll shriek about some Mysterious Mistake that has since
been "corrected" but he can't give details about that, either.

[deep]

You're LYING. I NEVER SAID THAT. I distinctly called it "binary
coded octal" and I showed you how we could actually count to eight in
three bits.

>Looks like we're on the same page.
>

No you're NOT. Sandman gets it. You don't.

>>
>> But he presented it as a 3 bit count.
>>> If we have 4 bits then his count should have been given as:
>>>
>>> 0000
>>> 0001
>>> 0010
>>> 0011
>>> Etc.
>>>
>>> That is how you present a 4 bit count.
>>
>> Yes, and is represented by hex (0 - F).
>
>or 0-9 if it's BCD but you have to be told that since you can't tell the
>difference from being given just the beginning logic as Dudu tried to
>assert.

Gee, go back and read it again. Get someone to read to you. I called
it OCTAL many times.

BTW, octal can be more than three bits. Like for example a 7777 is
presented as 111 111 111 111 and is a perfectly valid example of
binary coded octal.

>
>
>>> And a 3 bit count is often used since it translates EXACTLY to octal
>>> coding. Just as hex is regularly used with a 4 bit counter."
>>
>> Excuse me, but octal IS a three bit counter (Base 8) and hex IS a four
>> bit counter (Base 16) not just a numerical system often using them. Both
>> need conversion to represent decimal numbers (Base 10).
>
>Exactly. 3 bit is represented with octal and 4 bit with Hex (unless you're
>using BCD)
>

Bullshit. I NEVER called it hex. I never used a ABCDEF in my
counting. I was showing you how to count to eight and why you had to
start a zero.

Of course now you're lying rather than admit the truth. You're
pathetic.

>>> Indeed BCD is just a broke dick hex counter.
>>>
>>> Na, as I said, anyway you slice it Dudu screwed it up. As usual.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just like Hex uses a four position
>>>> register (and some alpha characters, but, I digress).
>>>
>>> True, but the size of his register magically increased in size at the
>>> end of the first 3 bit cycle.
>>
>> That's true.
>
>So Dudu tries to talk the talk....but as usual shows he really doesn't know
>what he's trying to assert he's knowledgeable about.
>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

You're insane. I was/am absolutely right about everything I
explained. It's not my fault you still don't get it. And you called
yourself a computer expert? You're a sick joke and nothing more.

Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3dj1q85brjo57i693...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:37:19 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:0dc1q89enkfo0hg0i...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:05:46 -0600, deep wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:20:56 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh
>>>>ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>>>Yeah.
>>>>>You can't even count properly in binary.
>>>>>Bullshit. You're a fucking liar. You don't know how binary works then.
>>>>> You even know what binary coded octal is?
>>>>>No, of course you don't. Obviously.
>>>>>=======================
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't mater if you're talking about binary, standard octal,
>>>>>binary-coded octal or hexadecimal, YOU DO NOT START COUNTING AT ZERO.
>>>>
>>>>Idiot. Of course you do. Computers do
>>>
>>> No, they don't.
>>
>>Actually, in this case Dudu is right. When you count in computer
>
> Actually, when we instruct a computer to count years, it begins "Year
> One, Year Two," etc. etc.

Now you're changing the conditions.

Further you would still start by clearing the register which sets it to
zero.

> How it performs the task electronically isn't the issue, as Dudu
> knows.

Perhaps, but in this particular case it does start with an actual zero
condition and counts up from there.

Of course, for anyone other than a programmer the point is utterly moot. But
then you know Dudu when his ignorance is caught out. He starts fishing
around for something where what he said would be true......and then tries to
assert it applies even though the topic was something else entirely,.

A calendar system is not and never has been an electronic computer, nor have
people for that matter. So how a computer counts is irrelevant to how people
count or how our calendar system works.

A this point Dudu is demonstrating his stupidity and dishonesty by
attempting to make a hash of his claims rather than simply admitting his
error.

> We're STILL waiting for Dudu to show us how any year ending in a "9"
> could possibly be the end of the decade without the existence of a
> "Year Zero."
>
> He can't do it.

No he can't and he never will because we started with Year 1, it will always
be Year 1, and unless he thinks we are going to change EVERY data ever
recorded just to suit him.

> Because there is no such thing as "Year Zero."

True.

> Of course, he'll shriek about some Mysterious Mistake that has since
> been "corrected" but he can't give details about that, either.

Well, he claims this 'Mistake" should be corrected, but it hasn't and it
almost certainly never will. At least not until we adopt a new calendar
system which seems highly unlikely.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 11:13:56 -0400, "Scout"

<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3dj1q85brjo57i693...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:37:19 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0dc1q89enkfo0hg0i...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:05:46 -0600, deep wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:20:56 -0400, ogr...@webtv.net (Padraigh
>>>>>ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>>>>Yeah.
>>>>>>You can't even count properly in binary.
>>>>>>Bullshit. You're a fucking liar. You don't know how binary works then.
>>>>>> You even know what binary coded octal is?
>>>>>>No, of course you don't. Obviously.
>>>>>>=======================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't mater if you're talking about binary, standard octal,
>>>>>>binary-coded octal or hexadecimal, YOU DO NOT START COUNTING AT ZERO.
>>>>>
>>>>>Idiot. Of course you do. Computers do
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't.
>>>
>>>Actually, in this case Dudu is right. When you count in computer
>>
>> Actually, when we instruct a computer to count years, it begins "Year
>> One, Year Two," etc. etc.
>
>Now you're changing the conditions.

Well, no. This entire conversation began waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy back
when with Dudu's inability to count years.

Eery time it comes up, it's about Dudu's inability to count.

Being unable to count on his own, I can certainly see how Dudu would
employ the use of a computer and it's many intricate and complex
electronic circuits and programming.

But, in the end, Year 1 is always going to be the first year.

>A this point Dudu is demonstrating his stupidity and dishonesty by
>attempting to make a hash of his claims rather than simply admitting his
>error.
>
>
>> We're STILL waiting for Dudu to show us how any year ending in a "9"
>> could possibly be the end of the decade without the existence of a
>> "Year Zero."
>>
>> He can't do it.
>
>No he can't and he never will because we started with Year 1, it will always
>be Year 1, and unless he thinks we are going to change EVERY data ever
>recorded just to suit him.
>
>
>> Because there is no such thing as "Year Zero."
>
>True.
>
>> Of course, he'll shriek about some Mysterious Mistake that has since
>> been "corrected" but he can't give details about that, either.
>
>Well, he claims this 'Mistake" should be corrected,

I believe he has claimed it HAS been corrected. But he's a little
short on details, just like he's short in intelligence.

[deep]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:25:44 -0600, deep wrote:

Well? Are you going to be man enough to admit you've been wrong all
along or you going to run and hide again? You've admitted computers
reset to zero and start counting again there. Computers only do what
we design them to do. Why would we teach computers to count from zero
if that's not what we so. I've shown you several examples that prove
I'm right. So be man enough to fess up; you've been wrong all along.
Now quit lying, get over, and be man enough to admit you've learned
something.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 13:04:45 -0600, deep wrote:

>Well? Are you going to be man enough to admit you've been wrong all
>along or you going to run and hide again?

I think you're going to run and hide again. In fact, I KNOW it.

Where is Year Zero?

[chuckle]

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:btj1q890mkvflsijp...@4ax.com:

Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary coded
decimal.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:8v20q8lh7gana2uov...@4ax.com:

Whatever. I said I was not going to look it up. If you wish to continue
this YOU can look it up with message numbers.

>>> I called it binary coded
>>> octal for an example of how you can count to eight in three bits.
>>
>>Interesting since I do remember you referring to binary coded decimal
>>and do not recall you referring to binary coded octal. I even
>>wondered at the time why simply didn't used the term "octal".
>>
> No you don't remember that because I didn't. And octal is 0-7. Binary
> coded octal is 000-111.

Which totals 0 to 7.

>> And
>>> binary is binary numbnuts. It's just base two. Doesn't matter what
>>> number system you're coding to binary. It's still binary.
>>
>>That depends on what base you are coding in. Pure binary code gets
>>rather lengthy and it is easier to refer to it in hex.
>
> I was using octal as an example because it's so easily coded into 3
> bit binary and it was a teaching aid to show Scout et al why you had
> to start counting with zero and how you can get a count of eight into
> 3 bits.

[deep]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:09:14 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.
>>
>
>Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary coded
>decimal.

Show me where or shut up. Scout mistakenly assumed I mean to show
decimal because I showed the 2^3 (8) place to indicate we carried a
one when we reset first three bits to zero. That was the whole point.
His assumption would't have been correct anyway because as you pointed
out four bits is the standard representation of hexidecimal, not
decimal. But I never said decimal. I specifically called it binary
coded octal which is what it is. It's the simplest way I could think
of to represent a binary counter which would reset and start counting
over again to make the point again that you absolutely must start
counting with zero, regardless of your number system. Of course Scout
is now just trying to obfuscate and dodge rather than admit his
extreme embarrassment.

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:sgt1q817ga6m6l0si...@4ax.com...

Agreed and the fact that a computer does start counting at zero doesn't
alter that fact, nor despite Dudu's attempts determine when our calendar
started.

> Being unable to count on his own, I can certainly see how Dudu would
> employ the use of a computer and it's many intricate and complex
> electronic circuits and programming.
>
> But, in the end, Year 1 is always going to be the first year.

Yep, which is why Dudu's attempt to claim he was right all along is doomed
to failure because there is NO Year Zero in our calendar.

>>A this point Dudu is demonstrating his stupidity and dishonesty by
>>attempting to make a hash of his claims rather than simply admitting his
>>error.
>>
>>
>>> We're STILL waiting for Dudu to show us how any year ending in a "9"
>>> could possibly be the end of the decade without the existence of a
>>> "Year Zero."
>>>
>>> He can't do it.
>>
>>No he can't and he never will because we started with Year 1, it will
>>always
>>be Year 1, and unless he thinks we are going to change EVERY data ever
>>recorded just to suit him.
>>
>>
>>> Because there is no such thing as "Year Zero."
>>
>>True.
>>
>>> Of course, he'll shriek about some Mysterious Mistake that has since
>>> been "corrected" but he can't give details about that, either.
>>
>>Well, he claims this 'Mistake" should be corrected,
>
> I believe he has claimed it HAS been corrected. But he's a little
> short on details, just like he's short in intelligence.

Dudu claims a lot of things, but as we both know it is crap not fact that
Dudu regularly asserts.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:3q72q8dp3orlovfjq...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:09:14 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.
>>>
>>
>>Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary coded
>>decimal.
>
>
> Show me where or shut up.

I don't work for you, so don't waste your breath.

Scout mistakenly assumed I mean to show
> decimal because I showed the 2^3 (8) place to indicate we carried a
> one when we reset first three bits to zero. That was the whole point.
> His assumption would't have been correct anyway because as you pointed
> out four bits is the standard representation of hexidecimal, not
> decimal. But I never said decimal. I specifically called it binary
> coded octal which is what it is. It's the simplest way I could think
> of to represent a binary counter which would reset and start counting
> over again to make the point again that you absolutely must start
> counting with zero, regardless of your number system. Of course Scout
> is now just trying to obfuscate and dodge rather than admit his
> extreme embarrassment.
>

[deep]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:54:58 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:3q72q8dp3orlovfjq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:09:14 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary coded
>>>decimal.
>>
>>
>> Show me where or shut up.
>
>I don't work for you, so don't waste your breath.

If you can't back up the claim that somebody said something, maybe you
should stop claiming they did.

Why are you still defending Scout when you know how totally wrong he's
been all along?

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:1sh2q85kkrqei5pm7...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:54:58 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>deep wrote in news:3q72q8dp3orlovfjq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:09:14 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary
>>>>coded decimal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Show me where or shut up.
>>
>>I don't work for you, so don't waste your breath.
>
> If you can't back up the claim that somebody said something, maybe you
> should stop claiming they did.

I had already told you I wasn't going back to look it up. I notice that
you aren't producing it either so piss off.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1CBAE1DF...@216.196.121.131...

> deep wrote in news:1sh2q85kkrqei5pm7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:54:58 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>deep wrote in news:3q72q8dp3orlovfjq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:09:14 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary
>>>>>coded decimal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me where or shut up.
>>>
>>>I don't work for you, so don't waste your breath.
>>
>> If you can't back up the claim that somebody said something, maybe you
>> should stop claiming they did.
>
> I had already told you I wasn't going back to look it up. I notice that
> you aren't producing it either so piss off.

Why waste your time?

Octal or Decimal still doesn't matter since a 3 bit logical table doesn't
suddenly gain a 4th bit simply because it recycles.

If Dudu really knew what he was talking about he wouldn't have made that
obvious error.

[deep]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 19:06:34 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:1sh2q85kkrqei5pm7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:54:58 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>deep wrote in news:3q72q8dp3orlovfjq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:09:14 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Ask Sandman, he knows I'm right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not about not calling it a binary coded "octal". You said binary
>>>>>coded decimal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me where or shut up.
>>>
>>>I don't work for you, so don't waste your breath.
>>
>> If you can't back up the claim that somebody said something, maybe you
>> should stop claiming they did.
>
>I had already told you I wasn't going back to look it up. I notice that
>you aren't producing it either so piss off.

I can't produce something that doesn't exist numbnuts. You're
condemning someone for not producing something that you made up in an
intentional lie? That's about as illogical as you can get.

[deep]

Nobody said the binary register was limited to 3 bits. Just because
you don't know what happens to more than three bits.

>If Dudu really knew what he was talking about he wouldn't have made that
>obvious error.

It wasn't an error. It was showing you what happened when you
incremented one more past 7 and reset to zero and carried the one.
Nothing says octal has to be limited to one digit you dumbshit. You
really don't understand anything about counting in other numbers
systems, do you. Certainly know nothing about computers.

You certainly don't understand binary coded octal. Here, I'll show
you again.

0=000
1=001
2=010
3=011
4=100
5=101
6-110
7=111
10=1000=8

See? How simple. You still don't understand.

Go ahead, give it a try, admit you've been made a fool of again.

[deep]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:05:40 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Yep, which is why Dudu's attempt to claim he was right all along is doomed
>to failure because there is NO Year Zero in our calendar.

I never said there was a year zero you lying asshole. That's just
your obsession rather than admit I've made a fool of you again.

FYI our number systems are NOT based on a 2000 highly flawed calendar
system.

Our calendar system IS however based on our base ten number system.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:45:15 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:05:40 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Yep, which is why Dudu's attempt to claim he was right all along is doomed
>>to failure because there is NO Year Zero in our calendar.
>
>
>I never said there was a year zero you lying asshole. That's just
>your obsession rather than admit I've made a fool of you again.

There is NO OTHER WAY for a year ending in 9 to be the end of a decade
WITHOUT a Year Zero.

You claim decades end in years ending with a 9

Therefore, you are claiming there is a year zero.

Unless, of course, you're claiming something even MORE stupid, like
they plucked a random year out of a random decade somewhere.

Which stupid excuse are you going to use?

>FYI our number systems are NOT based on a 2000 highly flawed calendar
>system.

Nobody claimed it was, so your strawman burned to ash as soon as you
set it out.

>Our calendar system IS however based on our base ten number system.

Now, tell us how a year ending in 9 could possibly be the end of a
decade.

We both know you won't.

[chuckle]

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:2ru3q8l7qkf3cr4uj...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 21:45:15 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:05:40 -0400, "Scout"
>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Yep, which is why Dudu's attempt to claim he was right all along is
>>>doomed
>>>to failure because there is NO Year Zero in our calendar.
>>
>>
>>I never said there was a year zero you lying asshole. That's just
>>your obsession rather than admit I've made a fool of you again.
>
> There is NO OTHER WAY for a year ending in 9 to be the end of a decade
> WITHOUT a Year Zero.
>
> You claim decades end in years ending with a 9
>
> Therefore, you are claiming there is a year zero.
>
> Unless, of course, you're claiming something even MORE stupid, like
> they plucked a random year out of a random decade somewhere.
>
> Which stupid excuse are you going to use?
>
>>FYI our number systems are NOT based on a 2000 highly flawed calendar
>>system.
>
> Nobody claimed it was, so your strawman burned to ash as soon as you
> set it out.
>
>>Our calendar system IS however based on our base ten number system.

Wrong. Our calendar system is based on the Julian calendar system which was
based on the earlier Roman calendar systems which Roman numerals.

Gregorian calendar
"The calendar was a reform in 1582 to the Julian calendar"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

Julian calendar
"The Julian calendar was a reform of the Roman calendar introduced by Julius
Caesar in 46 BC"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar

Indeed the modern decimal system wasn't even INVENTED until around 500AD.

"The decimal Hindu-Arabic numeral system was invented in India around 500
CE"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

No, our calendar system is NOT based on our base ten number system, and
never has been.

As such your attempting to apply our base ten number system to it caused you
to fuck it up like so much you do when you try to play mix 'n match with
your facts.

> Now, tell us how a year ending in 9 could possibly be the end of a
> decade.
>
> We both know you won't.
>
> [chuckle]

Well, he could simply chose to ignore the definitions used like he so
regularly does when they don't suit him.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:dsv2q81elcrgqlem0...@4ax.com:

Since multiple people seemed to have seen it versus one.....you, who has
a tendency to lie and never admit to a mistake.. Which one(s) would you
believe if you were a neutral party?