New Math???

["guest@endurance.net" <guest@endurance.net>]

K S SWIGART   katswig@earthlink.net


On March 29, 2001 Tom Ivers wrote:

> However, 
> since they are allowed here, I feel perfectly free to respond in kind. Waste 
> of time, though. That's why I haven't bothered for a year.  

But on September 12, 2000 Tom Ivers wrote:

> In a message dated 9/12/00 11:15:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, CMKSAGEHIL 
> writes:
>
> << Ti, I have yet to be personally offended by anything you say.  It never 
> pays to make such assumptions or unsubstantiated leaps in logic.  But it is 
> always SUCH a pleasure to see more of your substantive dialog at work...  
> I've given you two good sources--you claim to have an open mind--YOU check it 
> out.>
>
> Heidi--we have a medical expert right here with us--YOU! 
>
>   >I personally don't give a rip if you want to put your money where your 
> mouth is or not, and get brave enough to find out.>
>
> All I'm asking is that you put your mind where your mouth is. Once again, it 
> is clear that you don't know what you're talking about--but you have a lot to 
> say on the subject nevertheless. 
>
>  > Your educational lacks on the subject are not my problem.>
>
> Precisely why I was hopeing that your intellectual firepower would shed some 
> light.
>
> > You're the one who always claims to advise folks to use what works, and 
> then go find out why it works.  So go right ahead--demonstrate your open mind 
> here, and do your homework.  Heck, no, I'm not going to do it for you.  Not 
> my problem, bucko.>
>
> Your problem is credibility. 
>  
>  Heidi >>
>
> ti

The last time I checked the amount of time between September of one year and 
March of the following year was about 6 months.  To be precise the time between 
Tom's last waste of time and his assertion that it has been a year is 198 days.  
Must be some kind of new math that makes 198 = 365 (the number of days in a 
year, unless we are talking about some other kind of calendar that I don't know 
about).  

For a guy who is supposedly keen on presentation of just the facts, he's pretty 
free with altering or exaggerating them when it suits him.  In this instance he
exaggerated by just under 85%.

Yeah, I know, it sucks having your own words quoted back to you, but that is one 
of the chances you take when you write things down and then publish them (that 
is what an internet mailing list is, a publishing forum).

If anybody wants to quote my own words back to me, have at it.  The last time
I challenged Tom to do so he said:

> Kat,
>
> I'm going to allow you to "finish" this "debate" with your last post and 
> therebye make you a WINNER. Will somebody please send her a belt buckle?
>
> ti

But I can guarantee you, if you catch me saying something inconsistent, 
hypocritical or stupid, I would be only to happy to have somebody point it out 
to me so that I can intelligently reconsider the things that I have said and 
and correct my faulty thinking if necessary.

What I won't do is make the lame excuse of "well...everybody else is doing it." 
That excuse didn't work when I was 8 or 13, and I would like to think that now 
that I am an adult, that I have grown out of it. :)

kat
Orange County, Calif.

p.s.  I still haven't gotten the belt buckle.  It would mean a whole lot more if 
it were to come from Tom himself. :)