Stroke or Blonde Moment?

What Happened to Serene Branson?

  • Stroke

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Blond Moment

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • Obstruction of Air Flow Between Ears

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Pinheads Understood Her Completely!

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • Total voters
    9
Threedee said:
Blonde is spelled with an "e." Without it, you can't break the word down into equal thirds.
Click to expand...

—Usage note
The spelling blonde is still widely used for the noun that specifies a woman or girl with fair hair: The blonde with the baby in her arms is my anthropology professor. Some people object to this as an unnecessary distinction, preferring blond for all persons: My sister is thinking of becoming a blond for a while. As an adjective, the word is more usually spelled blond in reference to either sex ( an energetic blond girl; two blond sons ), although the form blonde is occasionally still used of a female: the blonde model and her escort. The spelling blond is almost always used for the adjective describing hair, complexion, etc.: His daughter has blond hair and hazel eyes.

It's actually SEXIST to use "blonde" ....why does it not surprise me that YOU spell it that way?
 
Beefy said:
She's still far more coherent than your math arguments.
Click to expand...

Aww... sorry my math arguments are too complicated for you. One can't be divided by three without producing a remainder... still that way today, just as it has always been, and it will be that way again tomorrow, I suspect. But really, Beefy.. you and Grind, and Damo, and Superfreak, and Sochead, Jarhead, Waterhead, whoever wants to join the Stupid Brigage... you all keep chiming in with your remarks about the value of a third, because that is of utmost importance in light of today's troubles. I really do want everyone to know that you people are too stupid to understand basic math, and believe one can be evenly divided into three parts without a remainder. Maybe we can have them change the little "e" they use to describe the remainder value, to a little "p" for PINHEAD?
 
Nice tangent.

You don't think there can be equal thirds of 1. 1 anything. Mile, foot, hour......

Of course you think all of us that remember these lame idiotic arguments shouldn't talk about them anymore. But I merely bring them up for use as a reference point as to how you were told your beliefs at a young age, and have stuck with them no matter how wrong they are. And then when you can no longer cling to them logically, you merely claim that you never held them.

You know it, and all of us know it.
 
Beefy said:
Nice tangent.

You don't think there can be equal thirds of 1. 1 anything. Mile, foot, hour......

Of course you think all of us that remember these lame idiotic arguments shouldn't talk about them anymore. But I merely bring them up for use as a reference point as to how you were told your beliefs at a young age, and have stuck with them no matter how wrong they are. And then when you can no longer cling to them logically, you merely claim that you never held them.

You know it, and all of us know it.
Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with believing the mathematical fact that one is indivisible by three without producing a remainder. I can't help that is a mathematical fact, I wish I could join la-la land and pretend it's not so, but I can't. I've never argued that rulers or miles, or anything we've created units of measure for, can't be divided into thirds. You continue to "hear" that somehow, whenever I post. I think you all have brain damage, to be honest.
 
Dixie said:
Aww... sorry my math arguments are too complicated for you. One can't be divided by three without producing a remainder... still that way today, just as it has always been, and it will be that way again tomorrow, I suspect. But really, Beefy.. you and Grind, and Damo, and Superfreak, and Sochead, Jarhead, Waterhead, whoever wants to join the Stupid Brigage... you all keep chiming in with your remarks about the value of a third, because that is of utmost importance in light of today's troubles. I really do want everyone to know that you people are too stupid to understand basic math, and believe one can be evenly divided into three parts without a remainder. Maybe we can have them change the little "e" they use to describe the remainder value, to a little "p" for PINHEAD?
Click to expand...

LOL... that was not how you presented your 1/3 argument ditzie. You did not state that 1 could not be divided by 3 without a remainder. You stated that nothing could be divided into thirds without a remainder. Which is completely false.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... that was not how you presented your 1/3 argument ditzie. You did not state that 1 could not be divided by 3 without a remainder. You stated that nothing could be divided into thirds without a remainder. Which is completely false.
Click to expand...

Nope. I never made such an argument, and repeatedly said, we divide things into thirds all the time. We can even divide one into thirds and presume all three parts are equal, because the remainder can be divided out so far, as to become insignificant. None of this changes mathematical facts, anytime you divide 1 into 3 parts, a remainder is produced. It is impossible to have three defined equal values to comprise 1. We can get close... .333333e is the value for 1/3, but the little "e" is a placeholder value, it goes on for eternity. If something goes on for eternity, it hasn't been defined, we don't know where eternity stops. It's like holding a mirror up to another mirror... how many images of the mirror are produced as a result? As many as you can see? As many as you feel like counting? Or, is it something which can't be defined because it technically goes on forever?

Through nearly 10,000 posts on this topic, over the course of 3 years, I have never made any false statement or claim about 1/3, and have consistently argued that 1 can't be divided into 3 parts without producing a remainder. And almost from the inception, pinheads have attempted to twist and skew what I said, to form it into an absurdity they can ridicule. It's really sad a group of people would spend so much time on something so superfluous...and STILL believe they have some point to make!
 
Dixie said:
Nope. I never made such an argument, and repeatedly said, we divide things into thirds all the time. We can even divide one into thirds and presume all three parts are equal, because the remainder can be divided out so far, as to become insignificant. None of this changes mathematical facts, anytime you divide 1 into 3 parts, a remainder is produced. It is impossible to have three defined equal values to comprise 1. We can get close... .333333e is the value for 1/3, but the little "e" is a placeholder value, it goes on for eternity. If something goes on for eternity, it hasn't been defined, we don't know where eternity stops. It's like holding a mirror up to another mirror... how many images of the mirror are produced as a result? As many as you can see? As many as you feel like counting? Or, is it something which can't be defined because it technically goes on forever?

Through nearly 10,000 posts on this topic, over the course of 3 years, I have never made any false statement or claim about 1/3, and have consistently argued that 1 can't be divided into 3 parts without producing a remainder. And almost from the inception, pinheads have attempted to twist and skew what I said, to form it into an absurdity they can ridicule. It's really sad a group of people would spend so much time on something so superfluous...and STILL believe they have some point to make!
Click to expand...
Dude, you told me, "If you cut a three by one inch candy bar into exactly 1 inch pieces that one would be 'slightly larger' because you can't divide one by three without that remainder!"

It's flat nonsense, and it is what you argued.
 
Damocles said:
Dude, you told me, "If you cut a three by one inch candy bar into exactly 1 inch pieces that one would be 'slightly larger' because you can't divide one by three without that remainder!"

It's flat nonsense, and it is what you argued.
Click to expand...

Your examples are what is nonsense. I never argued that ANYTHING couldn't be divided into three parts! Yardsticks, candy bars, pies, a dozen eggs.... We can divide anything into thirds, and presume them to all be equal. We can even divide 1 into thirds, and presume all three parts to be equal, because the remainder is divided to the point of being insignificant.

If what you are all trying to claim were true, you could also divide 10 into 3 equal parts, or 100. Go ahead, give it a try! 3 X _____ = 10? If you can fill in the blank with a defined value, you win! Unfortunately, you can't! Math is like that! There is no "his opinion" and "my opinion" when it comes to math.
 
Dixie said:
Nope. I never made such an argument, and repeatedly said, we divide things into thirds all the time. We can even divide one into thirds and presume all three parts are equal, because the remainder can be divided out so far, as to become insignificant. None of this changes mathematical facts, anytime you divide 1 into 3 parts, a remainder is produced. It is impossible to have three defined equal values to comprise 1. We can get close... .333333e is the value for 1/3, but the little "e" is a placeholder value, it goes on for eternity. If something goes on for eternity, it hasn't been defined, we don't know where eternity stops. It's like holding a mirror up to another mirror... how many images of the mirror are produced as a result? As many as you can see? As many as you feel like counting? Or, is it something which can't be defined because it technically goes on forever?

Through nearly 10,000 posts on this topic, over the course of 3 years, I have never made any false statement or claim about 1/3, and have consistently argued that 1 can't be divided into 3 parts without producing a remainder. And almost from the inception, pinheads have attempted to twist and skew what I said, to form it into an absurdity they can ridicule. It's really sad a group of people would spend so much time on something so superfluous...and STILL believe they have some point to make!
Click to expand...

You continue with your same bullshit ditzie.

If you divide a foot into three parts it is not 'presumed equal' it does not leave some 'minuscule remainder'. It is not simply 'perceived' as equal thirds.

It is three exactly equal 4" pieces. Period.

It is your moronic attempt to state that because it can't be defined as a percentage that it must not be equal that people mock you. The fact is, it can be stated as a percentage. It is 33 1/3% of the foot. It is your moronic position that percentages must be stated using decimals that is confusing you.
 
Superfreak said:
You continue with your same bullshit ditzie.

If you divide a foot into three parts it is not 'presumed equal' it does not leave some 'minuscule remainder'. It is not simply 'perceived' as equal thirds.

It is three exactly equal 4" pieces. Period.

It is your moronic attempt to state that because it can't be defined as a percentage that it must not be equal that people mock you. The fact is, it can be stated as a percentage. It is 33 1/3% of the foot. It is your moronic position that percentages must be stated using decimals that is confusing you.
Click to expand...

Inches are a man made unit of measure. I never claimed that something can't be divided into thirds, or that what we divide into thirds can't be presumed to be equal thirds. Those are claims you think I have made, but they only exist inside your pinheaded mind. "33 1/3" is not defined as a value. We presume it to be "1/3" and the remainder value is assumed by one of the three parts. Again, I refer you to the simple math problem above... fill in the blank with a defined value, and you win! You've proven me wrong! Until you can do that, you haven't proven me wrong, and you can't... math is math.
 
Socrtease said:
For godsakes, someone pull up the candybar quote so he can see how stupid he was back then and now.
Click to expand...

Well you an pull up whatever quote you like, as long as you take it out of context to read something that wasn't said, I am sure you can have fun with it... but it still doesn't change mathematical facts.
 
The first of your premises, that a fraction is not a "number"...

We began there, and it got worse.

So... I'll give you some rudimentary math sites where you can find out that a fraction is a number.

http://www.mathleague.com/help/fractions/fractions.htm#whatisafraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_(mathematics)

Let's start with the first sentence of each of those sites. "A Fraction is a Number..."

Amazingly, it represents what Dixie says "isn't"... But it really is. 1/3 is itself a number. That it cannot be expressed as a decimal doesn't change that at all.

In fact the second site even covers that argument of Dixies that a fraction is solely a "division problem"...

Here is that sentence: Other uses for fractions are to represent ratios, and to represent division. Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (three to four) and the division 3 ÷ 4 (three divided by four).

Note the "other uses" part of that sentence. Dixie takes one use, and only one mathematical expression and states unequivocally that it is the only way one can understand fractions, but it is a false premise, everything that extends from that premise is fruit of the poisoned tree.
 
Damocles said:
The first of your premises, that a fraction is not a "number"...

We began there, and it got worse.

So... I'll give you some rudimentary math sites where you can find out that a fraction is a number.

http://www.mathleague.com/help/fractions/fractions.htm#whatisafraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_(mathematics)

Let's start with the first sentence of each of those sites. "A Fraction is a Number..."

Amazingly, it represents what Dixie says "isn't"... But it really is. 1/3 is itself a number. That it cannot be expressed as a decimal doesn't change that at all.

In fact the second site even covers that argument of Dixies that a fraction is solely a "division problem"...

Here is that sentence: Other uses for fractions are to represent ratios, and to represent division. Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (three to four) and the division 3 ÷ 4 (three divided by four).

Note the "other uses" part of that sentence. Dixie takes one use, and only one mathematical expression and states unequivocally that it is the only way one can understand fractions, but it is a false premise, everything that extends from that premise is fruit of the poisoned tree.
Click to expand...
The Ball is now in Dixie's court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top