From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 19:38:32 MST
Like I said before, the MATHEMATICAL (a non esoteric FORMAL SYSTEM OF
KNOWLEDGE) convention that this guy is MISREPRESENTING is known as the
REMAINDER operation. From 50, those numbers have a certain REMAINDER...
>From 10 those numbers have a certain REMAINDER....
Another point, YOU assign the denigration of "quick perusal" to anyone not
seeing YOUR perspective on a certain reference. Because one doesn't share
YOUR ESOTERIC "comprehension" of a topic, they necessarily did not give the
material "proper" consideration. They "quickly perused"
it because they don't share YOUR view.
OPEN DECLARATION TO ALL WHO SHALL SEE THESE PRESENT, GREETINGS.
When Yash forwarded the much "acclaimed" URL, I printed out the whole site,
not just the one page. Took it around with me to lunch and a couple of other
meetings. I read it completely and thouroughly THREE separate times, which I
believe I stated as much IN HERE. Yet Yash persists in asserting that
because I don't share his BELIEF, I did not do these things.
Repeatedly Yash has asserted NOTHING other than HIS belief in this ONE idea
vis-a-vis Vedic Math. Repeatedly OTHERS have shown the lack of proof in HIS
arguments. Repeatedly, it has been shown from various OTHER sources of
verifiable resouce that his persistant assertion is erroneous.
Yash, you are asserting BELIEF, personal or otherwise.
Yash, you are not using FORMAL methodolgies of scientific inquiry,
discussion or research.
Yash, you have asserted that you have a formal background as a SYSTEMS
ENGINEER.
Yash, you have NOT demonstrated a discernable command of mathematics beyond
rudenetary algebra.
Yash, you have NOT demonstrated a discernable command of critical reasoning.
FORUM, I have, as Yash pointed out below, strayed from my acclaimed
preferences. Sorry.
FORUM, I have NOT deviated from my refutation of Yashs erroneous assertions.
FORUM, this does PRESENT the appearance of a flame war.
But what I and a few others have tried to point out, either through frontal
assault or indirect nudging, is that in this FORUM we have selected to abide
by critical reasoning and scientific inquiry. Neither of which has Yash
remotely tried to evidence in his lugubrious exhortations to the contrary.
I, and hopefully most of this forum, will not yeild to the negotiated
mediocrity of asserting belief over knowledge through the enabling of those
who would assert through highly questionable material and methodologies
their ESOTERIC BELIEFS.
There is no shortage of silliness in the world. Be warned, those who attempt
to bring it in here will sufer the consequences. First you WILL be
challenged, put the proof in the pudding. And if you can't; Yash, take note
here, DO NOT CHANGE THE TOPIC! withdraw, politely. Then your arguments will
be refuted. Then you will be either reviled or ridiculed, depending upon the
phase of the moon, day of the week, winds of change. Then you and your
supposed argument will be parsed, "perused", plumbed, and subsequently
pilfered.
One more thing about observing the language usage of others as an appraisal
of their general competance in critical reasoning and whatever topic they so
happen to be discussing, it is a very telling tale. When someone habitually
misuses grammar, syntax and morphology, what can be inferred? When someone
habitually clings to such usage in the face of resounding evidence to the
contrary, what more can be infered?
Let us take a simple example. I have been repeatedly accused of "perusing"
certain material. The usage of this word has always been in a negative,
sometimes extremely, conotation. Let's look at recent example of heinousely
incorrect language usage in support of an esoteric belief system:
from the Webster's II New Riverside, sitting on many a desk in America.
pe-ruse: p&-'rüz /vt/ To read or examine, esp. very carefully.
So Yash, thank you for "accusing" me of doing EXACTLY what I said I was
doing all along while at the time performing exactly to script.
Y'all have a NICE day.
Kirkasurus Wrecks
-----Original Message-----
From: Yash [mailto:yashk2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:48 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: One more time, mebbe little snipe Yash will pay
attention this time.
I agree that if the author of the text had used anything other thatn the
word "base" there would have been no ambiguity at all.
Still, if you read the text, it's easy to see that it's unambiguously about
calculation in Base 10.
However, if one gives it just a quick persual as you did, then one can get
the wrong impression that the text is about Base 50, as you have all along.
In any case it would have been written something like "we calcualte in Base
50", or "we convert our values into Base 50".
As it is it is written "we use as our base 50", meaning he subtracts from 50
instead of from a higher number necause the 'deficiency' (read difference)
is smaller, making the calculation more efficient and more suitable to be
done on sight. That's the point of these calculations, to make them
efficient and doable on sight or mentally.
Here is what you wrote all along:
<Various qoutes from Kirk Steele follow>
___
Swami Nitwit, is the one ASSERTING BASE 50! FEWL, he used it,
catastrophically wrong!
I admitteded to reading it, twice! but as others have pointed out, you
intentionally misrepresent; among other things.
____
Ok EVERYBODY loves YASH. He is the center of his universe. BLAH BLAH BLAH
Get over your fool self and this complete idiot swami.
____
And then, AND THEN, we have here some nitwit who claims to be a SYSTEMS
ENGINEER, idolizing this boob.
____
Look at "BASE 50" TOTAL BULLSHIT!
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html
This guy doen't know shiite from shinola
____
then there is the completely erroneous manner in which this charlatan tries
to assert "BASE 50"
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html
___
<Quotes from Kirk Steele end here>
You tried to deviate from the argument, bringing into how it's about "Ok,
everybody loves Yash. He is the center of the universe", etc...
You have been wrong all along. There was nothing about Base 50 in the usual
mathematical notion there as you claimed there was.
But you're too stupid to admit where you went so obviously wrong.
BTW, I don't idolise anybody.
Yash.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Steele, Kirk A
If he is not using a RADIX of 50 then he shouldn't use the phrase BASE 50.
In math, when one use the word "BASE" in DIRECT conjunction with a number
(the convention is that this number be in BASE 10) then in common, AND
TECHNICAL USAGE, the person using this phrase is talking about a RADIX. If
not, then the person is either innocently ignorant of a common convention in
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT