Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:19:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What's worse is that b'asskisser thinks someone really cares what he
thinks!

John H

Please show where the above is false.

Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
 

"Jim--" wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are
approximations, hence the ALMOST.

Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!

what in the above is "tap dancing"? True statements, all.

Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Jim--" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good
at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are
approximations, hence the ALMOST.

In the context of your original post you should have said "more than" a
third, not "almost" a third.

No big deal. Laugh it off and move on. We all make mistakes.

Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
 

"Jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Jim--" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater
than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow,
but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the
percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed,
almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it
quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone
think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a
third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms,
than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation,
I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark.

God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning!



Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good
at
math though, which should be an engineers strong point.

What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are
approximations, hence the ALMOST.

In the context of your original post you should have said "more than" a
third, not "almost" a third.

No big deal. Laugh it off and move on. We all make mistakes.

Please show where I made a mistake. Almost can be less than, or more
than. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be reading and
trying to undermine ANY post.

Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies