Everyone Loves Inacurate Transactions Everyday, (as long as they are in our favour)

Savvybuyer

Measurements of time, distance, weight are all human-made anyway by reference to some humanity-selected standard, so I'm sure the universe, which 'knows' none of this, won't implode!:)

Additionally I don't accept that the conclusion "so bye-bye universe!" is logically drawn from the premise made at all:rotfl:.

So...that's solved that one:D...next!:cool:... and I don't need to go through any brain-aching algebra:).

Jelly_Biactol

ilovegreatdanes wrote: »

I hated maths at school...all that stuff about how fast a car goes if it takes so many hours to get from a to b.or if so and so is this age, how old is her brother?went right over my head:rotfl:...how I passed maths o level I will never know

Me neither - I threw up during mine:o (And I mean threw up.) And still passed. Just. Can anyone top that?:rotfl:

PS - ILGD, your avatar is Malham Cove? It's been bugging me if it is or not:)

Munqui

Jelly_Biactol wrote: »

'Show your workings':rotfl:
(I've scanned the page from the book, just in case I've typed it up wrong:o)

But I always thought if you divide by zero then you have the imaginary +/- infinity :think:

btw i've removed your workings :cool:

Sunshinemummy

Jelly_Biactol wrote: »

Me neither - I threw up during mine:o (And I mean threw up.) And still passed. Just. Can anyone top that?:rotfl:

PS - ILGD, your avatar is Malham Cove? It's been bugging me if it is or not:)

Hello everyone!

In relation to maths... when I was first introduced to algebra my brain automatically switched off! So my maths learning when I was 9 years of age.

DS2 is doing pure maths for his degree.... I think I must have been given the wrong baby in the maternity ward!

;););)

strewth71

Bananababe wrote: »

Your right (after rounding) divide by 140 times 100. X

That's what was driving me mad Bb, I couldn't for the life of me see where we'd gone wrong I get it now And dd is counting on me to get her up to and through her gcse's :eek::rotfl:

ilovegreatdanes

Apologies but please indulge me for a minute......
why do all the news channels, when reporting these famous !!!!!philes, insist on showing clips of them from past tv interviews, where they are smiling and joking, etc...instead of just a picture of the person.eg jimmy saville joking roung, smirking.if I was one of the victims, I would not want constantly reminding of the ordeal.theres no excuse as we all know what they look like so a stock photo will suffice. Makes me so:mad::mad:
thanking you for your time

ilovegreatdanes

Jelly...im not sure if it is malham...just picked it for my photo cos its bootiful:D

Sunshinemummy

ilovegreatdanes wrote: »

Apologies but please indulge me for a minute......
why do all the news channels, when reporting these famous !!!!!philes, insist on showing clips of them from past tv interviews, where they are smiling and joking, etc...instead of just a picture of the person.eg jimmy saville joking roung, smirking.if I was one of the victims, I would not want constantly reminding of the ordeal.theres no excuse as we all know what they look like so a stock photo will suffice. Makes me so:mad::mad:
thanking you for your time

I think that there is some method in their madness.

It can help people who have not disclosed to come forward.

It also should remind us all that people who pose a risk to children look and act normal.

But I do agree that it is likely to cause distress for the victim

x

rhosynbach

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Hello everyone!

In relation to maths... when I was first introduced to algebra my brain automatically switched off! So my maths learning when I was 9 years of age.

DS2 is doing pure maths for his degree.... I think I must have been given the wrong baby in the maternity ward!

;););)

This made me laugh as I say the same about ds3, I am rubbish at maths so is oh, but ds3 is amazing, he is top in his school, in the top 100 school pupils in wales, and loves maths has a natural ability which I am happy to take advantage of when it comes to glitches,apgs, and oh. Books:D

Savvybuyer

ilovegreatdanes wrote: »

Apologies but please indulge me for a minute......
why do all the news channels, when reporting these famous [child sexual predators], insist on showing clips of them from past tv interviews, where they are smiling and joking, etc...instead of just a picture of the person.eg jimmy saville joking roung, smirking.if I was one of the victims, I would not want constantly reminding of the ordeal.theres no excuse as we all know what they look like so a stock photo will suffice. Makes me so:mad::mad:
thanking you for your time

I don't know - maybe ask them? I suppose that is part of the historically accurate record so they use it. I think probably a still photo every time wouldn't fit the medium - television is a 'moving pictures' thing so they use the clip? Maybe it has more impact (as you're demonstrating).

I don't like the smiling Jimmy Savile nowadays either; I know what you say about the victims, but you can't censor everything from everybody.

What makes me thinking is the partial censorship of a word in your post by this forum (or maybe you wrote it like that?), that raises more issues for me now about that. And about why? (I'm always asking myself, and sometimes others:o, that question.) When we know exactly what was meant, it's pointless. Presumably it's there so we can't call anyone on this forum a [the word with five letters]. Even if it's true?:huh: That itself does absolutely speak volumes about the 'vast majority of the world' people and the inability of the mass of the world to accept the truth.

Right, my argument supported and found to be totally justified once again:D:o:D(yawn)!

EDIT: Yes, I've tested it (then deleted) and the forum really does part-censor that word. How ineffective!:(

EDIT 2: I've now amended the quote, as my 'policy' is to amend a word to replace completely by another, or by a phrase, that is completely acceptable. Hardly any better, and probably worse (I needn't have used the word "child", but trying to be as accurate as possible to the original meaning). I think they are - call a spade a spade. I mean you can't call them the original word, and that that "truth", on this occasion, isn't accepted: not that we can't accept the true awfulness of their actions/activities.