ronan posted:

Dave posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

HehHeh 

'dave' chippin in . . . helpin 'stormborn' out

alyuh 2 deplorables deserve each other

lol

Thomas I man enjoy watching Stormy clapping you bamsey. 

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

well lookee here

Captain Obvious throwing a big babee tantrum

doan buss a blood vessel bai . . . i might feel responsible if you hurt yuhself

arite?

"captain obvious" and "...buss a blood vessel" ....surely you can be a bit more creative than repeat the most banal of hackneyed phrases dunce or lazy people use to prop up nonsense...then there was doing Mrs Clinton bad with swiping her "deplorable" faux pas 

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

then you should have started your own thread

but it would have likely died an ignoble death because what you are prancing and prating about is OBVIOUS!

that's all

I write on any thread I want and on any subject I desire. I also do not write for dunces and pedants and you seem to have the genes of both deficiencies. 

well lookee here

Captain Obvious throwing a big babee tantrum

doan buss a blood vessel bai . . . i might feel responsible if you hurt yuhself

arite?

"captain obvious" and "...buss a blood vessel" ....surely you can be a bit more creative than repeat the most banal of hackneyed phrases dunce or lazy people use to prop up nonsense...then there was doing Mrs Clinton bad with swiping her "deplorable" faux pas 

heh heh heh

Ayuh deh pon page #5!!!!!!

Stormborn posted:

I am speaking about memorization nor of tables dummy...memorization of rules and theorem etc without knowing what they mean.

Good! Suh all yuh posts hay mean jack shit! NOTHING to do with the topic, just a POOR attempt by you to pretend you know something and recite over and over "I am smart", citing poets, Ramanujan and all kindsa irrelevant bullshit. Amral should close this thread now suh yuh doant extend it another 5 pages! Never seen such a need for attention!

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

I am speaking about memorization nor of tables dummy...memorization of rules and theorem etc without knowing what they mean.

Good! Suh all yuh posts hay mean jack shit! NOTHING to do with the topic, just a POOR attempt by you to pretend you know something and recite over and over "I am smart", citing poets, Ramanujan and all kindsa irrelevant bullshit. Amral should close this thread now suh yuh doant extend it another 5 pages! Never seen such a need for attention!

Bai, why you like raise up ants nest?

@Former Member

Don't worry bai, Bibi gon be along jus now fuh "anug" yuh. Den yuh gon know about ants nest.

Stormborn posted:

And this is about memorization simply for memorization. What hell good is the quadratic formula or the sum rule if you do not know what it means. It is like the McDonald register with icons or excel functions with no understanding of the underlying functions

That is why even today, I choose to write my formulae from scratch instead of using the built in Excel functions. I learned to write formulae and macros when I was using Symphony and Quattro way before I started using Lotus and way before I started using Excel.

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

I am speaking about memorization nor of tables dummy...memorization of rules and theorem etc without knowing what they mean.

Good! Suh all yuh posts hay mean jack shit! NOTHING to do with the topic, just a POOR attempt by you to pretend you know something and recite over and over "I am smart", citing poets, Ramanujan and all kindsa irrelevant bullshit. Amral should close this thread now suh yuh doant extend it another 5 pages! Never seen such a need for attention!

Sorry, being a dimwit you cannot process simple logical sequences. I do not have to pretend. You do presuming the bilge above has some resonance to what was stated. Do you seek attention responding to this so far? If so it would be a continent excuse to your grotesque inability to grasp the simple fact that mere memorization without the explanation of the fundamentals never get anyone anywhere. It simply leaves us with mathematically handicapped as you.

Stormborn posted:

Sorry, being a dimwit you cannot process simple logical sequences. I do not have to pretend. You do presuming the bilge above has some resonance to what was stated. Do you seek attention responding to this so far? If so it would be a continent excuse to your grotesque inability to grasp the simple fact that mere memorization without the explanation of the fundamentals never get anyone anywhere. It simply leaves us with mathematically handicapped as you.

Banna, you talk sheer skont! A myriad of words that mean nothing. Look fool, let me break it down for you.

a. I referred numerous times to the tables of weights and measures at the back of the exercise book. My reference is clear.

b. Said tables of weights and measures do NOT contain theorems and formulas. They simply state units of measurements such as
5280 feet are in a mile
16 ounces are in a pound
etc.

Some of these are in use for over hundreds of years, these measures being stated as being so for a number of reasons. You do not "work them out" or calculate them. We're not talking about f(x) or Pythagoras theroem here. 

I respond to further demonstrate what a complete imbecile you are, not knowing the difference between a table of weights and measures and mathematical formulae. You dragged the latter into this simple discussion on multiplication tables and units of weights and measurement on an exercise book in response to your natural compulsion to show off.

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

You sir, are an intellectual fraud! A poser and a dunce! The simpletons here with subpar educations may fawn over your big words and long sentences that mask your idiocy, but others see thru your stupidity! You're just in love with your self and can't resist the urge to talk shit about something you know nothing about.

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

Sorry, being a dimwit you cannot process simple logical sequences. I do not have to pretend. You do presuming the bilge above has some resonance to what was stated. Do you seek attention responding to this so far? If so it would be a continent excuse to your grotesque inability to grasp the simple fact that mere memorization without the explanation of the fundamentals never get anyone anywhere. It simply leaves us with mathematically handicapped as you.

Banna, you talk sheer skont! A myriad of words that mean nothing. Look fool, let me break it down for you.

a. I referred numerous times to the tables of weights and measures at the back of the exercise book. My reference is clear.

b. Said tables of weights and measures do NOT contain theorems and formulas. They simply state units of measurements such as
5280 feet are in a mile
16 ounces are in a pound
etc.

Some of these are in use for over hundreds of years, these measures being stated as being so for a number of reasons. You do not "work them out" or calculate them. We're not talking about f(x) or Pythagoras theroem here. 

I respond to further demonstrate what a complete imbecile you are, not knowing the difference between a table of weights and measures and mathematical formulae. You dragged the latter into this simple discussion on multiplication tables and units of weights and measurement on an exercise book in response to your natural compulsion to show off.

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

You sir, are an intellectual fraud! A poser and a dunce! The simpletons here with subpar educations may fawn over your big words and long sentences that mask your idiocy, but others see thru your stupidity! You're just in love with your self and can't resist the urge to talk shit about something you know nothing about.

Are we now having verbal diarrhea given you are so "usually" parsimonious with your words? What you say you said changes by the instance. You said burnham was a genius and later said that was not your focus. Then I responded about learning a thing the right way first vs memorizing and you now threw a fit about formulas vs tables! Surely it takes a lot of swallowing your own spittle as you foam at the mouth to conclude I am ignorant of formulas!It must surely convulse your brain to believe you are in the presence of a dunce. I leave you to resolve that contradiction on your own.

BTW, I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was  transposing William Blake on truth to speak of  good intentions  with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent. Now you and him in your desire to mine disputes think there is something wrong with saying that. Well...that is your problem not mine. 

I don’t care what you (Stormy) or Ksazma say, lil memorization of some basics and formulas don’t harm you thinking and problem solving skills!

Do you work out the formula for measuring a circle or you memorize and applying to solve a given problem?

I agree that beyond the basics, too much memorization impedes innovative thinking!

Progress comes because you don’t try to figure what has been done, you use it to solve bigger problems!

Ksazma stupid analogy about Excel formula is stupidness!

Stormborn posted:

You [Iguana] said burnham was a genius and later said that was not your focus.

Iguana said no such thing!

you LIE like a desperate, beaten dog

becoming more and more brazen as you enter nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun your shame

popcorn & butter time today watching you yip, yelp and snarl as more and more LASH is applied to your mangy hide

smfh

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

You [Iguana] said burnham was a genius and later said that was not your focus.

Iguana said no such thing!

you LIE like a desperate, beaten dog

becoming more and more brazen as you enter nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun your shame

popcorn & butter time today watching you yip, yelp and snarl as more and more LASH is applied to your mangy hide

smfh

How you know, are you two of a kind. Defend yourself.

kp posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

You [Iguana] said burnham was a genius and later said that was not your focus.

Iguana said no such thing!

you LIE like a desperate, beaten dog

becoming more and more brazen as you enter nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun your shame

popcorn & butter time today watching you yip, yelp and snarl as more and more LASH is applied to your mangy hide

smfh

Defend yourself.

???

Stormborn posted:

Iguana posted:

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was  transposing William Blake on truth to speak of  good intentions  with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent.

ahmmm, this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent"

there is NO SUCH from William Blake!

and further, i will go as far as to suggest you google up what "transpose" means

you seem not to know, but bray anyway

as i said before . . . you deep deep inside nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun shame

a naked fraud

smfh

Baseman posted:

I don’t care what you (Stormy) or Ksazma say, lil memorization of some basics and formulas don’t harm you thinking and problem solving skills!

Do you work out the formula for measuring a circle or you memorize and applying to solve a given problem?

I agree that beyond the basics, too much memorization impedes innovative thinking!

Progress comes because you don’t try to figure what has been done, you use it to solve bigger problems!

Ksazma stupid analogy about Excel formula is stupidness!

You can only know the ratios  that are used in the formulas calculating the property of a circle by deriving it from the definition of a circle. 

There is a philosophy of mathematics and it must be inculcated in the student so they can see how for example, euclidean geometry comes from five basic precepts. Kaz is not wrong. I do not know what he does but Excel is made up of a set of "c" algorithms that generates functions.

While it is not necessary to know them to do ordinary accounting you do need to know the underlying mathematics if you are mapping of the weather and doing physics ie modeling astronomical phenomena. Wall streets hire physicists not statisticians to model their hedge fund program Just as you need to know the mathematics to program the excel functions, you need to know the mathematics if you are to be a good scientist. 

ronan posted:

kp posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

You [Iguana] said burnham was a genius and later said that was not your focus.

Iguana said no such thing!

you LIE like a desperate, beaten dog

becoming more and more brazen as you enter nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun your shame

popcorn & butter time today watching you yip, yelp and snarl as more and more LASH is applied to your mangy hide

smfh

Defend yourself.

Pedantry will not make you smart or avoid the implication that burnham seeing beyond others does not imply some genius. That is what he said. He say farther than others implying the man had some insight that gluten was dangerous hence rice flour was the better choice. You dunces need to find fault by nit picking not by actual argumentation

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

Iguana posted:

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was  transposing William Blake on truth to speak of  good intentions  with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent.

ahmmm, this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent"

there is NO SUCH from William Blake!

and further, i will go as far as to suggest you google up what "transpose" means

you seem not to know, but bray anyway

as i said before . . . you deep deep inside nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun shame

a naked fraud

smfh

You do not know shit about Blake and is only making an ass of yourself by pretending you do.  I know what I said and if you knew Blake you would see it is  as I said, twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes. 

Stormborn posted:

Sorry, being a dimwit you cannot process simple logical sequences. I do not have to pretend. You do presuming the bilge above has some resonance to what was stated. Do you seek attention responding to this so far? If so it would be a continent excuse to your grotesque inability to grasp the simple fact that mere memorization without the explanation of the fundamentals never get anyone anywhere. It simply leaves us with mathematically handicapped as you.

Fool, the thread is about an exercise book with tables of weights and measures (that I referenced specifically). After much bluster and whining, and calling me a dunce, you said this "I am speaking about memorization nor of tables dummy". So you're speaking about something completely irrelevant to the discussion, i.e, your own topic about formulas and theorem (not at the back of the exercise book). You look for any excuse to prance about and speak as if you're smart, eh? Po you. Po needy you.

Amral tek you Old book and go home, too much fight deh at school.

Stormborn posted:

euclidean geometry comes from five basic precepts....... Excel is made up of a set of "c" algorithms that generates functions......underlying mathematics if you are mapping of the weather and doing physics ie modeling astronomical phenomena. Wall streets hire physicists not statisticians to model their hedge fund program.....

So we've gone from a simple topic of  recalling the units of weights and measures at the back of the Burnham exercise book to the above. Euclidean geometry. "C" algorithms. Functions. Mapping the weather. Modeling astronomical phenomena.

All suh you can sound "smart". Five going on ten pages now. Fcking clown!

The usefulness of all the above in its proper context aside , somewhere in Guyana, some po child writing common entrace is wondering wha all dem ting gat to do with him knowing there's 5280 feet in a mile or an eight of a furlong in a mile.

Stormborn posted:

Pedantry will not make you smart or avoid the implication that burnham seeing beyond others does not imply some genius. That is what he said. He say farther than others implying the man had some insight that gluten was dangerous hence rice flour was the better choice. You dunces need to find fault by nit picking not by actual argumentation

ahmmm, actually, "what he said" was "Burnham was ahead of his time in many ways" which he goes on to contextualize

you passed that through the "imply" grinder in your anus and came up with "Burnham was a genius" . . . all the better to do your Don Quixote lance and windmills thing and impress the Nehrus and Ksazmas on GNI that your hate of fatbai burns hotter than theirs

surely there are more intelligent ways to 'achieve' that kind of fame, no?

saddling up a crude LIE in tin armor in further pursuit only marks you as BOGUS and INFANTILE by even the most casual discerning

you now reduced to whining that those exposing your shame are "nitpicking" and being "pedantic" because they are not playing by your situational, low IQ 'rules' of "actual argumentation"

smfh

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

Iguana posted:

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was  transposing William Blake on truth to speak of  good intentions  with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent.

ahmmm, this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent"

there is NO SUCH from William Blake!

and further, i will go as far as to suggest you google up what "transpose" means

you seem not to know, but bray anyway

as i said before . . . you deep deep inside nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun shame

a naked fraud

smfh

I know what I said and if you knew Blake you would see it is  as I said, twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes. 

ahhhh . . . the "quote" the quote, the quote

the "common quote" that you hiding in your bt and will not share

oh wait . . . a glimmering

"twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes"

methinks this is wan trial balloon for an 'escape' route . . . hmmm?

lol

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

Pedantry will not make you smart or avoid the implication that burnham seeing beyond others does not imply some genius. That is what he said. He say farther than others implying the man had some insight that gluten was dangerous hence rice flour was the better choice. You dunces need to find fault by nit picking not by actual argumentation

ahmmm, actually, "what he said" was "Burnham was ahead of his time in many ways" which he goes on to contextualize

you passed that through the "imply" grinder in your anus and came up with "Burnham was a genius" . . . all the better to do your Don Quixote lance and windmills thing and impress the Nehrus and Ksazmas on GNI that your hate of fatbai burns hotter than theirs

surely there are more intelligent ways to 'achieve' that kind of fame, no?

saddling up a crude LIE in tin armor in further pursuit only marks you as BOGUS and INFANTILE by even the most casual discerning

you now reduced to whining that those exposing your shame are "nitpicking" and being "pedantic" because they are not playing by your situational, low IQ 'rules' of "actual argumentation"

smfh

As I said, pedantry is your middle name. The fellow tried to impress on us the foresight of Burnham, ie his genius, by informing us of his above par perception in anticipating something lesser minds could not. His premise was mistaken and his conclusion similarly flawed. I informed him there was nothing remarkable about burnham except his penchant for power and thuggery and his choice of rice over wheat was a consequence of his failed five year plan. Story done. You can parse it however. It is what I stated that matters to me and I believe I conveyed my message succinctly. Burnham was a buffoon.

Whatever I presumptions in your mind which elasticity is measured only by its capacity for air-headed nonsense,  matters little to me. My intellect serves me well to distinguish a fool from one with authentic smarts. You are more in the former category than the latter. 

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

Iguana posted:

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was  transposing William Blake on truth to speak of  good intentions  with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent.

ahmmm, this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent"

there is NO SUCH from William Blake!

and further, i will go as far as to suggest you google up what "transpose" means

you seem not to know, but bray anyway

as i said before . . . you deep deep inside nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun shame

a naked fraud

smfh

I know what I said and if you knew Blake you would see it is  as I said, twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes. 

ahhhh . . . the "quote" the quote, the quote

the "common quote" that you hiding in your bt and will not share

oh wait . . . a glimmering

"twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes"

methinks this is wan trial balloon for an 'escape' route . . . hmmm?

lol

As I said, it was a common quote from one of the most widely known of the romantic poets. You need crutches to pretend you are well read. I do not. 

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

Pedantry will not make you smart or avoid the implication that burnham seeing beyond others does not imply some genius. That is what he said. He say farther than others implying the man had some insight that gluten was dangerous hence rice flour was the better choice. You dunces need to find fault by nit picking not by actual argumentation

ahmmm, actually, "what he said" was "Burnham was ahead of his time in many ways" which he goes on to contextualize

you passed that through the "imply" grinder in your anus and came up with "Burnham was a genius" . . . all the better to do your Don Quixote lance and windmills thing and impress the Nehrus and Ksazmas on GNI that your hate of fatbai burns hotter than theirs

surely there are more intelligent ways to 'achieve' that kind of fame, no?

saddling up a crude LIE in tin armor in further pursuit only marks you as BOGUS and INFANTILE by even the most casual discerning

you now reduced to whining that those exposing your shame are "nitpicking" and being "pedantic" because they are not playing by your situational, low IQ 'rules' of "actual argumentation"

smfh

Story done. You can parse it however. It is what I stated that matters to me and I believe I conveyed my message succinctly.

uh huh

stepping up to a discerning big man while wearing panty is not smart

you'll learn . . . eventually

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

Iguana posted:

In so doing, you got your ass handed to you. You do not know the difference between the math formulas and what was at the back of the exercise book. In fact I highly doubt you ever saw the back of a Guyanese exercise book in the Burnham era. And you grossly misrepresented what William Blake meant and took a sound thrashing from Ronan on it.

I did not misrepresent what Blake said. I stated that I was  transposing William Blake on truth to speak of  good intentions  with stupidly poor results beating all the bad you can invent.

ahmmm, this is what you said:

"What good are good intentions? Transposing William Blake on truth; good intentions with stupidly poor results beats all the bad you can invent"

there is NO SUCH from William Blake!

and further, i will go as far as to suggest you google up what "transpose" means

you seem not to know, but bray anyway

as i said before . . . you deep deep inside nothing-to-lose territory in this extended effort to outrun shame

a naked fraud

smfh

I know what I said and if you knew Blake you would see it is  as I said, twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes. 

ahhhh . . . the "quote" the quote, the quote

the "common quote" that you hiding in your bt and will not share

oh wait . . . a glimmering

"twisting a common quote to of his to suit my purposes"

methinks this is wan trial balloon for an 'escape' route . . . hmmm?

lol

As I said, it was a common quote from one of the most widely known of the romantic poets.

pull it out yuh bt suh abie can see nah?

lol

ronan posted:

uh huh

stepping up to a discerning big man while wearing panty is not smart

you'll learn . . . eventually

Exactly you...persist in this lunacy and you would be worthy of being put away. You are live in the banal. Since this is on Blake;  he tells us in all his poems that life is movement from the loss of gain  or as Wordsworth said from innocence to intellect and philosophy. Check out his poem but to music by the Fugs if you need help to step out of the muck you live om.

As you are you do not grow. You remain hobbled by same stagnant confusion of your own mind driven not by any inclination to learn but an overbearing penchant to ridicule what you do no know. Yes dummy...it was a quote from blake..one of the most widely read poet of the times  and one who dominated our pop culture so much that you can hardly get by without stumbling over his poetry and philosophy.

ronan posted:

pull it out yuh bt suh abie can see nah?

lol

I will not do for you what you can do for yourself. This quote is so common one can hardly miss it unless one is a borderline mental cripple.

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

uh huh

stepping up to a discerning big man while wearing panty is not smart

you'll learn . . . eventually

Yes dummy...it was a quote from blake..one of the most widely read poet of the times  and one who dominated our pop culture so much that you can hardly get by without stumbling over his poetry and philosophy.

oww man . . . post it naa

i done tell the board that it doesn't exist

wuh mo you want from me?

you running all over the place mumbling irrelevant sh!t about Wordsworth and what else you know

i never see friken like this in a long long time . . . tarasss!

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

uh huh

stepping up to a discerning big man while wearing panty is not smart

you'll learn . . . eventually

Yes dummy...it was a quote from blake..one of the most widely read poet of the times  and one who dominated our pop culture so much that you can hardly get by without stumbling over his poetry and philosophy.

oww man . . . post it naa

i done tell the board that it doesn't exist

wuh mo you want from me?

you running all over the place mumbling irrelevant sh!t about Wordsworth and what else you know

i never see friken like this in a long long time . . . tarasss!

I said two weeks time...enough time for you to get educated on what you so stupidly affirm you know.

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

Stormborn posted:

ronan posted:

uh huh

stepping up to a discerning big man while wearing panty is not smart

you'll learn . . . eventually

Yes dummy...it was a quote from blake..one of the most widely read poet of the times  and one who dominated our pop culture so much that you can hardly get by without stumbling over his poetry and philosophy.

oww man . . . post it naa

i done tell the board that it doesn't exist

wuh mo you want from me?

you running all over the place mumbling irrelevant sh!t about Wordsworth and what else you know

i never see friken like this in a long long time . . . tarasss!

I said two weeks time...

har de har har harrr!!

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

euclidean geometry comes from five basic precepts....... Excel is made up of a set of "c" algorithms that generates functions......underlying mathematics if you are mapping of the weather and doing physics ie modeling astronomical phenomena. Wall streets hire physicists not statisticians to model their hedge fund program.....

So we've gone from a simple topic of  recalling the units of weights and measures at the back of the Burnham exercise book to the above. Euclidean geometry. "C" algorithms. Functions. Mapping the weather. Modeling astronomical phenomena.

All suh you can sound "smart". Five going on ten pages now. Fcking clown!

The usefulness of all the above in its proper context aside , somewhere in Guyana, some po child writing common entrace is wondering wha all dem ting gat to do with him knowing there's 5280 feet in a mile or an eight of a furlong in a mile.

You caused this shit!!

Baseman posted:

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

euclidean geometry comes from five basic precepts....... Excel is made up of a set of "c" algorithms that generates functions......underlying mathematics if you are mapping of the weather and doing physics ie modeling astronomical phenomena. Wall streets hire physicists not statisticians to model their hedge fund program.....

So we've gone from a simple topic of  recalling the units of weights and measures at the back of the Burnham exercise book to the above. Euclidean geometry. "C" algorithms. Functions. Mapping the weather. Modeling astronomical phenomena.

All suh you can sound "smart". Five going on ten pages now. Fcking clown!

The usefulness of all the above in its proper context aside , somewhere in Guyana, some po child writing common entrace is wondering wha all dem ting gat to do with him knowing there's 5280 feet in a mile or an eight of a furlong in a mile.

You caused this shit!!

Hope you learned something rather than relying on the protestations against common sense by these fellows with petrified minds. If you expect an increment of edification from the fact that the back of our colonial exercise books had tables and measures on them, you would be poorly served. Who the hell care for that miscellany? Now you should  know,  they were about what is required as fundamental preparation and preparation by the British way of pedagogy and  rote memory did not serve us well. it did not encourage inquiring minds. 

I bet you caught hell in first year university here where you were required to expand on formulas and show the logical development to the answer. It is not a matter of getting it right but knowing why it is right. It is nice to know you can look at a problem and identify it as a binomial and factorize it immediately. The understanding however  is in the writing down of the expansion of the problem and logically illustrating how you came up with the answer., 

Stormborn posted:

Now you should  know,  they were about what is required as fundamental preparation and preparation by the British way of pedagogy and  rote memory did not serve us well. it did not encourage inquiring minds. 

I bet you caught hell in first year university here where you were required to expand on formulas and show the logical development to the answer. It is not a matter of getting it right but knowing why it is right. It is nice to know you can look at a problem and identify it as a binomial and factorize it immediately. The understanding however  is in the writing down of the expansion of the problem and logically illustrating how you came up with the answer., 

Here's a lil test fuh you smart man. Meh tables pon de exercise book seh 16 ounces in a pound. I memorize it and get a star pon meh common entrance. Now how about you "logically illustrate how I came up with the answer" or "knowing why it is right".

Tek yuh time. Feel free to reach out to yuh klansman fren and he excel macros if need be. Or phone NASA. And of course yuh good friends - GOOGLE or Cliffs notes.

Ah waiting fuh yuh "illustration" beyond "pedagogy and rote memory".

Ah notice ah giving some idiots ulcers. Dem been very restless after meh declared how cursed dem and dem mattee are. Den dere is de fat black coolie who suffers wid severe PTSD pretending tuh be wan Blackman. De kweshtion iz why he so desperately wish he was a Blackman.

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

Now you should  know,  they were about what is required as fundamental preparation and preparation by the British way of pedagogy and  rote memory did not serve us well. it did not encourage inquiring minds. 

I bet you caught hell in first year university here where you were required to expand on formulas and show the logical development to the answer. It is not a matter of getting it right but knowing why it is right. It is nice to know you can look at a problem and identify it as a binomial and factorize it immediately. The understanding however  is in the writing down of the expansion of the problem and logically illustrating how you came up with the answer., 

Here's a lil test fuh you smart man. Meh tables pon de exercise book seh 16 ounces in a pound. I memorize it and get a star pon meh common entrance. Now how about you "logically illustrate how I came up with the answer" or "knowing why it is right".

Tek yuh time. Feel free to reach out to yuh klansman fren and he excel macros if need be. Or phone NASA. And of course yuh good friends - GOOGLE or Cliffs notes.

Ah waiting fuh yuh "illustration" beyond "pedagogy and rote memory".

You are a dunce it is clear from above. I hardly care to engage you since nothing from you would ever be illuminating.

Stormborn posted:

Baseman posted:

You caused this shit!!

Hope you learned something rather than relying on the protestations against common sense by these fellows with petrified minds. If you expect an increment of edification from the fact that the back of our colonial exercise books had tables and measures on them, you would be poorly served. Who the hell care for that miscellany? Now you should  know,  they were about what is required as fundamental preparation and preparation by the British way of pedagogy and  rote memory did not serve us well. it did not encourage inquiring minds. 

I bet you caught hell in first year university here where you were required to expand on formulas and show the logical development to the answer. It is not a matter of getting it right but knowing why it is right. It is nice to know you can look at a problem and identify it as a binomial and factorize it immediately. The understanding however  is in the writing down of the expansion of the problem and logically illustrating how you came up with the answer., 

So there is no value in memorizing the very basics?  So let's reinvent the wheel!   Banna you are in a vast minority.  No, I never caught hell the first year, not over math anyway.  I was very quick at working out mathematical problems in a business quizz!  The fact that I memorize the basics them apply to solve more complex problems allowed me to be fast. 

Stormborn posted:

Iguana posted:

Stormborn posted:

Now you should  know,  they were about what is required as fundamental preparation and preparation by the British way of pedagogy and  rote memory did not serve us well. it did not encourage inquiring minds. 

I bet you caught hell in first year university here where you were required to expand on formulas and show the logical development to the answer. It is not a matter of getting it right but knowing why it is right. It is nice to know you can look at a problem and identify it as a binomial and factorize it immediately. The understanding however  is in the writing down of the expansion of the problem and logically illustrating how you came up with the answer., 

Here's a lil test fuh you smart man. Meh tables pon de exercise book seh 16 ounces in a pound. I memorize it and get a star pon meh common entrance. Now how about you "logically illustrate how I came up with the answer" or "knowing why it is right".

Tek yuh time. Feel free to reach out to yuh klansman fren and he excel macros if need be. Or phone NASA. And of course yuh good friends - GOOGLE or Cliffs notes.

Ah waiting fuh yuh "illustration" beyond "pedagogy and rote memory".

You are a dunce it is clear from above. I hardly care to engage you since nothing from you would ever be illuminating.

LMFAO, you "hardly care to engage" eh punk? The only DUNCE here is you! Given the chance to demonstrate what you preached, you slink away like the duncified goat you are!

You spent upwards of 4 pages arguing that memorization of a table of weights and measures was the domain of dunces. You then tek a BIG step into addled brain confusion of units of weights and measures with mathematical formulas, informing all of the obvious - that formulas need to be understood and not just repeated!

Then yuh heartily accuse Gwana man of being a "dunce" and "mathematically handicapped" and couldn't show "how it is right" because po Gwana man keep sehing de tings he "memorize" was units of weights and measures, which weren't mathematical formulae at all!

Now given the chance to show us how 16 ounces mek a pound (units of weights and measures) "is right", a chance to "logically illustrate" how they came to this conclusion, you run buckta-less from the scene of wan giant accident you created!

Reality finally hit yuh vacuous head that units of weights and measures are not mathematical formulas, thus they cannot be "worked out", "logically illustrated" to show how one "came up with the answer", other than a decision hundreds of years ago that the unit of measure was so. Even with the help of yuh frens Google and Cliff Notes you couldn't "solve" it, eh?

Banna, stop talking pure skont and engaging in discussions you know little to nothing about. You are a fraud with a compulsive need to be noticed and applauded!