A note about "numbers"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

l didn't miss anything, l merely pointed out where Rat Faced got his figures from, l find it strange you missed it.

---

Again really?

I missed nothing. You said the remark was warranted but it was quite the opposite since the numbers and where/who they come from were the point of the article and therefore not an "admission" of anything by the topic starter.
:dog: Run-On :dog:

So you did not merely point out something. You said it was warranted.

U wa wong

-said the Chinese man

mmk?

---

Sorry, l didn't realise you were that slow, let me explain to you carefully, try to keep up, OK?

l said ... "When l went to school 4 x 9 was 36, near enough to 37 to warrant his remark." ... did you get that, l said his REMARK was warranted, not his assumption.

Now, pay more attention, or post in the lounge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Again really?

I missed nothing. You said the remark was warranted but it was quite the opposite since the numbers and where/who they come from were the point of the article and therefore not an "admission" of anything by the topic starter.
:dog: Run-On :dog:

So you did not merely point out something. You said it was warranted.

U wa wong

-said the Chinese man

mmk?

---

Sorry, l didn't realise you were that slow, let me explain to you carefully, try to keep up, OK?

l said ... "When l went to school 4 x 9 was 36, near enough to 37 to warrant his remark." ... did you get that, l said his REMARK was warranted, not his assumption.

---

But the remark wasn't warranted.

The numbers were irrelevent and I don't know what assumption you are talking 'bout. You missed it Billy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

But the remark wasn't warranted.

The numbers were irrelevent. You missed it Billy.

---

Of course the remark was warranted, in fact it was an understatement, 37 divided by nine is 4.11 recurring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

But the remark wasn't warranted.

The numbers were irrelevent. You missed it Billy.

---

Of course the remark was warranted, in fact it was an understatement, 37 divided by nine is 4.11 recurring.

---

Uh..that's great, yeahyeah, that's just great. :mellow:

manker? :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

manker? :lol: :lol:

---

My hero. :)

70% of people between 18-99 know that 84% of statistics are made up.and that is a fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

manker? :lol: :lol:

---

My hero. :)

---

Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

My hero. :)

---

Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.

---

Why pick on him :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

My hero. :)

---

Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.

---

I just prefer to bask in my uniqueness......:smug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sara

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Actually, you are posting a bit like me :ermm:

However, not as good nor as articulate, obviously.

---

I just prefer to bask in my uniqueness......:smug:

---

My turn.

manker seems to think whypickonhim is actually a member called obviously.

can you check this out, via the gift of the interweb.

Or

"not as good nor as articulate" :blink: seems like pish grammatistics.