1. [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by 1evan at sbcglobal.net
Jul 18, 2003
http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
2. Re: [OT] Interesting?
1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
[Warning: I'm shooting from the hip here.]
Eeesh. That looked a lot like near-religious crankism to me.
The arguments in that page would have been better if they had been
introduced on several pages rather than in one big rant.
A menu to those pages would have been good too. e.g.
* Dozenal - Why I think it's a good base
* A dozenal notation system - could these be nature's numbers?
* The human body and dozenal.
* Other numberical bases and their uses in history.
* etc.
Also; If you're trying to make a serious argument, you don't use bright
yellow as your background colour...
Now this: http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
... is interesting.
Carl
--
[ Carl R White == aka () = The Domain of Cyrek = ]
[ Cyrek the Illogical /\ www.cyreksoft.yorks.com ]
3. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by 1evan at sbcglobal.net
Jul 18, 2003
Funny, that's almost exactly what I told the person who originally sent
me the link.
Carl W. wrote:
>
> 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
>
>
> [Warning: I'm shooting from the hip here.]
>
> Eeesh. That looked a lot like near-religious crankism to me.
>
> The arguments in that page would have been better if they had been
> introduced on several pages rather than in one big rant.
>
> A menu to those pages would have been good too. e.g.
> * Dozenal - Why I think it's a good base
> * A dozenal notation system - could these be nature's numbers?
> * The human body and dozenal.
> * Other numberical bases and their uses in history.
> * etc.
>
> Also; If you're trying to make a serious argument, you don't use
> bright yellow as your background colour...
>
> Now this: http://www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml
> ... is interesting.
>
> Carl
>
4. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jul 18, 2003
On 18 Jul 2003, at 14:35, Carl W. wrote:
>
>
> 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
>
> [Warning: I'm shooting from the hip here.]
>
> Eeesh. That looked a lot like near-religious crankism to me.
>
> The arguments in that page would have been better if they had been
> introduced on several pages rather than in one big rant.
>
> A menu to those pages would have been good too. e.g.
> * Dozenal - Why I think it's a good base
> * A dozenal notation system - could these be nature's numbers?
> * The human body and dozenal.
> * Other numberical bases and their uses in history.
> * etc.
>
> Also; If you're trying to make a serious argument, you don't use bright
> yellow as your background colour...
I didn't see the yellow. But they used the alledged word "forebears", which
means
nothing to me. All it could mean is "the the bear that came first". Now,
"forebearers" is a different word, and does make sense.
Kat
5. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by 1evan at sbcglobal.net
Jul 18, 2003
(SMTPD32-8.01) id A8386B00FA; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:46:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208=
Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
1463792126-1058538240 at boing.topica.com>
Well, according to Webster:
Main Entry: fore=B7bear
Pronunciation: -"bar, -"ber
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English (Sc), from fore- + -bear (from been to be)
: ANCESTOR=20
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3Dancestor>,=
=20
FOREFATHER=20
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3Dforefather>;=
=20
also : PRECURSOR=20
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=3DDictionary&va=3Dprecursor> --=
=20
usually used in plural
gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
>
>On 18 Jul 2003, at 14:35, Carl W. wrote:
>
>=20=20
>
>>1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>=20=20=20=20
>>
>>>http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
>>>=20=20=20=20=20=20
>>>
>>[Warning: I'm shooting from the hip here.]
>>
>>Eeesh. That looked a lot like near-religious crankism to me.
>>
>>The arguments in that page would have been better if they had been=20
>>introduced on several pages rather than in one big rant.
>>
>>A menu to those pages would have been good too. e.g.
>>* Dozenal - Why I think it's a good base
>>* A dozenal notation system - could these be nature's numbers?
>>* The human body and dozenal.
>>* Other numberical bases and their uses in history.
>>* etc.
>>
>>Also; If you're trying to make a serious argument, you don't use bright=
=20
>>yellow as your background colour...
>>=20=20=20=20
>>
>
>I didn't see the yellow. But they used the alledged word "forebears", whic=
h means=20
>nothing to me. All it could mean is "the the bear that came first". Now,=
=20
>"forebearers" is a different word, and does make sense.
>
>Kat
>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
>=20=20
>
6. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by 1evan at sbcglobal.net
Jul 18, 2003
Or without the freakin' mime:
Well, according to Webster:
Main Entry: forebear
Pronunciation: -"bar, -"ber
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English (Sc), from fore- + -bear (from been to be)
: ANCESTOR, FOREFATHER
also : PRECURSOR
usually used in plural
7. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jul 18, 2003
On 18 Jul 2003, at 10:43, 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> (SMTPD32-8.01) id A8386B00FA; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:46:16 -0400
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208=
> Netscape/7.02
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> 1463792126-1058538240 at boing.topica.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=3DISO-8859-1; format=3Dflowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Well, according to Webster:
> Main Entry: fore=B7bear
> Pronunciation: -"bar, -"ber
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English (Sc), from fore- + -bear (from been to be)
What does "from been to be" mean??
Kat
8. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by 1evan at sbcglobal.net
Jul 18, 2003
forebear ;)
literal translation?
fore -> been
bear -> be
I suppose.
gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>What does "from been to be" mean??
>
>Kat
>
>
9. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by gertie at visionsix.com
Jul 18, 2003
On 18 Jul 2003, at 11:39, 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> forebear ;)
> literal translation?
> fore -> been
> bear -> be
> I suppose.
Well, that makes no sense either.
What i was saying applied to that context. One could "forebear" a
descendant, that is, give birth to them, but that use sounds awkward to me.
Since the term could be used like that, then the person doing that would be
the do-er, the forebearER, not the forebear. To use "forebear" referring to the
action is as bad as saying "i could care less", when i really couldn't.
Kat
> gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
> >What does "from been to be" mean??
> >
> >Kat
> >
> >
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
10. Re: [OT] Interesting?
- Posted by 1evan at sbcglobal.net
Jul 18, 2003
So Lincoln should have said "...our forefatherers..."?
gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>
>
>On 18 Jul 2003, at 11:39, 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>>forebear ;)
>>literal translation?
>>fore -> been
>>bear -> be
>>I suppose.
>>
>>
>Well, that makes no sense either.
>What i was saying applied to that context. One could "forebear" a
>descendant, that is, give birth to them, but that use sounds awkward to me.
>Since the term could be used like that, then the person doing that would be
>the do-er, the forebearER, not the forebear. To use "forebear" referring to the
>
>action is as bad as saying "i could care less", when i really couldn't.
>
>Kat
>
>
>>gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What does "from been to be" mean??
>>>
>>>Kat
>>>
>>>
>>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>>
>>
>
>
>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
11. Re: [OT] Interesting?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:30:50 -0500, gertie at visionsix.com wrote:
>What does "from been to be" mean??
=46or some reason MIME stripped the italics ;->
Read it as:
from (the word "been") (meaning "to be")
Pete
12. Re: [OT] Interesting?
> http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
bleh, no thank you. i had a hard enough time learning binary and
hexadecimal. a dodecadecimal system just seems too complex, especially with
circles and lines, how precambrian. we've got this far on base 10, why
change it now?
13. Re: [OT] Interesting?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Getz" <Xaxo at aol.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: [OT] Interesting?
>
>
> 1evan at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html
> >
> >
> Howdy,
>
>
> THE SQUARE TRIANGLE
>
>
> Now for something more serious (ha ha), here are some counter points...
>
<snip>>
>
>
> You can probably use a triangular bit to drill a round hole, but
> ever try to drill a triangular hole?
Well, I've seen "drills" which can drill SQUARE holes, so I don't suppose it
would be completely impossible to make a variant which could drill a
triangular one! :)
Dan Moyer
ps. the "drill", mounted in a drill press, is actually an assemblege of a
hollow NON-ROTATING square "pipe" with sharp edges at the bottom, with a
regular drill INSIDE it, presumably sticking some distance down from the
bottom of the hollow square pipe, such that the drill drills a round hole
almost the size of the square, the pipe's sharp edges then chisels out the
remaining wood as the drill is advanced through it. Might not work so well
for a triangle, as there would be more wood left in the corners of a
triangular hole than in the corners of a square one.
>
<snip>
> Take care for now,
> Al
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
