Re: ¿Calculation to evaluate cruelty to animals? (was:Re: Ball, I'm curious about something)

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:10:42 +0000 (UTC), Lionel B <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:19:17 -0200, dh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Lionel B <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:01:19 -0200, dh wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:10:52 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> > <dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
>>>People, could you please have the courtesy to take this discussion off
>>>sci.math, alt.math, alt.math.recreational and alt.sci.math.probability
>>>where it is ridiculously off-topic.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>> 
>>     Mathematical equations apply to all things I'm aware of,
>
>Great. So everyone posting *anything* to *any* nesgroup should make sure 
>they cross-post to sci.math, alt.math, alt.math.recreational and 
>alt.sci.math.probability.

    Not necessarily, since not a single one of you has had anything
of value to say about this subject it doesn't seem likely you'd be
of any help with applying math to anything else either. I was afraid
"word problems" would be too hard for the majority of you, but hoped
at least a few of you were up to something as easy as this. 

>Tosser.

    Math loser.

>*PLONK*

    No loss there, since you have nothing of value to share on the
subject. Saying that a calculation for determining cruelty to animals
--or not--wouldn't apply to math certainly isn't of any value. In fact
it's not even true! So I guess even though it was no help in the
mathematical area, we did learn once again that dishonesty is
one of if not THE most common responses made by people replying
to news group posts. It sux. And BTW you have a lot of damn nerve
telling me where I can and can't post questions, even though you
people are apparently too lame to even attempt the challenge. Even
though obviously not one of you is up to it there could have been 
someone who could handle it, and with the challenge being posted
to this many groups it's not unreasonable to think that maybe even
more than one person could share something of value. From my pov 
it seems more likely that *someone* should have something of value 
to contribute, instead of the reality which turns out to be that not a 
single one of you has a worthwhile "thought" about the subject.