From: Yash (yashk2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 16:27:37 MST
He was wrong in saying the author of the text was asserting Base 50. His own
later posts (and yours as well) testify that the author was probably using
the terms Base 50 in a potentially misleading way, although if you do try
out the exercise, you soon see there's no ambiguity.
The only conclusion possible: Kirk Steele was wrong in the first place, and
even on second and third and what-not reading. His beliefs preceded the
evidence.
And in any case, it's irrational to think that mathematics in any other base
than 10 could be harmful.
After bashing Indians, you are latching onto Parisians and New Yorkers. You
are one sad fellow, aren't you?
Yash.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of L' Ermit
[Hermit notes that Steele was not wrong and had nothing to apologize for.
Yash is the one to whom this applies. Or does Yash think that he can insult
anyone one likes and then shrug it off by saying "I might have been wrong."
I wonder where in France Yash hails from, his manners seem worse even than
those of a Parisian. And they are as notorious - or worse - than New
Yorkers.]
_________________________________________________________
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 - 13:28:40 MDT