| Author |
Message |
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:30 am
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
In article <dnbhon$qv6$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Nick Wagg
<naw@transcendata.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Molly Mockford" <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
news:XJdNuqmfKNmDFwU5@molly.mockford...
At 08:50:02 on Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote
in <3vqaefF1782dgU1@individual.net>:
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make
our American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a
dwarf.
I would have ahbou-d that, but for the fact that 98% of those who
read that group wouldn't understand it :-(
Abhou-d?
// |
I think Molly meant ahbou'd.[1]
HTH. HAND.
[1] X-post to apihna considered but rejected out of laziness.
--
David - grough atcost btinternet fullstop com
www grough btinternet co uk/ (where'd me dots go to?)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nick Wagg
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
"Molly Mockford" <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
news:XJdNuqmfKNmDFwU5@molly.mockford...
| Quote: | At 08:50:02 on Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote in
3vqaefF1782dgU1@individual.net>:
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
I would have ahbou-d that, but for the fact that 98% of those who read
that group wouldn't understand it 
|
Abhou-d? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pedt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
In message <dnbhon$qv6$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 09:11:49 on Fri,
9 Dec 2005, Nick Wagg <naw@transcendata.com> wibbled
| Quote: | "Molly Mockford" <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
news:XJdNuqmfKNmDFwU5@molly.mockford...
At 08:50:02 on Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote in
3vqaefF1782dgU1@individual.net>:
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
I would have ahbou-d that, but for the fact that 98% of those who read
that group wouldn't understand it :-(
Abhou-d?
|
alt.humor.best.of.usenet
--
Pedt
Helpful words 04: Formicate (v) To swarm like ants. CCTV staff at rush hour
might want to say "Do you know that the passengers are formicating all over
the station platforms."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Paul Burke wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Stevens wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
That was Malcolm III.
Sorry, I'm an algebraist - never could count.
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
|
Roman numbers use Is. Binary uses 1s. It always annoys me intensely
when people describe the Is in Roman numerals as 1s.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Wagg
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
"Pedt" <"\"@ @\""@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9jIYRQ58JVmDFwzD@iwannabe.spamless.org.uk...
| Quote: | In message <dnbhon$qv6$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, at 09:11:49 on Fri,
9 Dec 2005, Nick Wagg <naw@transcendata.com> wibbled
Abhou-d?
alt.humor.best.of.usenet
|
I'm obviously not nerdy enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
In article <3vthphF17g9l7U1@individual.net>,
Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote:
| Quote: | John Briggs wrote:
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Sold his wife for a pair of shoes?
|
Doesn't rhyme.
--
David - grough atcost btinternet fullstop com
www grough btinternet co uk/ (where'd me dots go to?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0512091105400.18362@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Paul Burke wrote:
Mike Stevens wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
That was Malcolm III.
Sorry, I'm an algebraist - never could count.
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make
our American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a
dwarf.
Roman numbers use Is. Binary uses 1s. It always annoys me intensely
when people describe the Is in Roman numerals as 1s.
|
Bit[1] like calling "noughts" "ohs".
[1] Sorry, couldn't resist.
--
David - grough atcost btinternet fullstop com
www grough btinternet co uk/ (where'd me dots go to?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
In article <3vtl5oF178rfkU1@individual.net>,
Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Burke wrote:
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
I would have thought that the Roman numeral X would be expressed as
binary 110 (or II0, to use your rather unorthodox style), OTOH binary
1010 would correspond by my reckoning to Roman XVIII.
|
I think you've missed out the 4s column in binary.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
In article <HDhmf.25343$Cj5.15035@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>,
John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
I would have thought that the Roman numeral X would be expressed as
binary 110 (or II0, to use your rather unorthodox style), OTOH binary
1010 would correspond by my reckoning to Roman XVIII.
0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010.
|
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary
and those who don't. :-)
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
Nick Wagg wrote:
| Quote: | "Molly Mockford" <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
news:XJdNuqmfKNmDFwU5@molly.mockford...
At 08:50:02 on Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote in
3vqaefF1782dgU1@individual.net>:
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make
our American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a
dwarf.
I would have ahbou-d that, but for the fact that 98% of those who
read that group wouldn't understand it :-(
Abhou-d?
|
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Burke
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: |
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
|
Sold his wife for a pair of shoes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Einde O'Callaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
Paul Burke wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Stevens wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
But if he's asked about Malcolm II we could have quoted Shakespeare
That was Malcolm III.
Sorry, I'm an algebraist - never could count.
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
I would have thought that the Roman numeral X would be expressed as |
binary 110 (or II0, to use your rather unorthodox style), OTOH binary
1010 would correspond by my reckoning to Roman XVIII.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Burke wrote:
Mike Stevens wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
But if he's asked about Malcolm II we could have quoted
Shakespeare
That was Malcolm III.
Sorry, I'm an algebraist - never could count.
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
I would have thought that the Roman numeral X would be expressed as
binary 110 (or II0, to use your rather unorthodox style), OTOH binary
1010 would correspond by my reckoning to Roman XVIII.
|
0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:49 am
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
At 15:44:39 on Fri, 9 Dec 2005, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com>
wrote in <HDhmf.25343$Cj5.15035@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:
| Quote: | Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
Paul Burke wrote:
Mike Stevens wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
But if he's asked about Malcolm II we could have quoted
Shakespeare
That was Malcolm III.
Sorry, I'm an algebraist - never could count.
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make our
American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a dwarf.
I would have thought that the Roman numeral X would be expressed as
binary 110 (or II0, to use your rather unorthodox style), OTOH binary
1010 would correspond by my reckoning to Roman XVIII.
0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010.
|
Yes, but what tune does it go to?
--
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:04 am
Post subject: Re: Malcolm X |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
| Quote: | At 15:44:39 on Fri, 9 Dec 2005, John Briggs
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in
HDhmf.25343$Cj5.15035@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>:
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
Paul Burke wrote:
Mike Stevens wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
But if he's asked about Malcolm II we could have quoted
Shakespeare
That was Malcolm III.
Sorry, I'm an algebraist - never could count.
You could have claimed it was in binary... though that would make
our American friend Malcolm I0I0, which makes him sound like a
dwarf.
I would have thought that the Roman numeral X would be expressed as
binary 110 (or II0, to use your rather unorthodox style), OTOH
binary 1010 would correspond by my reckoning to Roman XVIII.
0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010.
Yes, but what tune does it go to?
|
"Auld Lang Syne", I believe 
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in