Posted by shoe3 on 8/13/2019 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by topdogggbm on 8/13/2019 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 8/13/2019 10:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Benis on 8/13/2019 7:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 8/12/2019 11:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mullycj on 8/12/2019 10:47:00 PM (view original):
Good stuff
Somebody has to say something interesting, hell I go out of town for 4 days, and people are resurrecting 4 year old boring threads to amuse themselves.
Wait. You've been gone FOUR days?!!
My god. Think of all the posts that have been "allowed to pass without comment".
So neglectful of your sworn duties to the HD forums.
LOL, says the guy with 2.65 times the number of posts in 2 fewer years. You are *literally* (you’re welcome, heyhowareya) the guy who calls someone else a name, thinking you’re making the other guy look like an *******.
The reason i laugh at you has nothing to do with the topics at hand. But more about..... "says the guy with 2.65 times the number....." hahaha!!!!!
You can't have normal conversations without making it a math problem! What's wrong with good ol "double the posts i have...."?! Is 2.65 that necessary to apply here?
I think you’re starting to catch on.
Saying double the posts wouldn’t be accurate, because it’s significantly more than double. Saying triple the posts would also be inaccurate (and misleading). Saying significantly more than double the posts is a lot of extra keystrokes. Benis already moans about the length of my average post, and I’m not sure how much more my fragile psyche can take.
My wife teases me when I say things like “I’ll be back in about 7 minutes”. My GPS says ETA is 7. I understand there is some leeway, depending on traffic ahead, and lights. So I add “about”. She says normal people would just round to 5 or 10. I have never claimed to be normal.
even though you are often wrong, i have to take this opportunity to point out how unambiguous it is that you are in fact wrong.
you are saying 2.65 times the posts is fine to say, but triple is not - you call triple misleading and inaccurate. inaccurate, sure - just like 2.65 - neither is exactly accurate unless specified as exact values that are, in fact, the exact values in question. calling triple inaccurate is fine - calling it misleading, that is just factually incorrect. also, calling triple inaccurate, in the context of contrasting to your 2.65 - is actually textbook misleading, because your 2.65 is similarly accurate and similarly inaccurate (unless we are being loose here with the term accurate, which surely, you would not tolerate). both triple and 2.65 are of limited accuracy, they both are just rounded values, but both are nonetheless correct.
the entire field of science and mathematics has a standard definition of significant digits, which you are not allowed to tweak for your own purposes. saying something is 2.65, without applying the qualifier 'exact', means it is 2.65 to 3 significant digits. this is correct if and only if the exact value is greater than or equal to 2.645 and less than 2.655. i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that is true - that the real value is in that range. if that is true, saying it is triple, aka 3 times higher, is equally correct. saying something is 3 times higher, without an exact qualifier ('exactly 3 times higher'), has a clear meaning - it is only correct if the value if greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than 3.5. which, if your 2.65 is correct, must be true.
therefore, you are confused and misleading in presenting your 2.65 as accurate while 3.0 is not, and are simply and unequivocally wrong to say the 'triple the posts' reference is misleading. both are correct, both are rounded values, neither is exact, and neither is misleading.
again... if only you were a little smarter or a little dumber... sigh
8/13/2019 5:34 PM (edited)