Re: Try to do the math, yanker tards.

theBZA wrote:
> "SilentCry" <silentcryX@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:fMD1k.2777$89.904@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
> 
>> "theBZA" <dewey3kNOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:Xns9AB37E215B565dewey3kNOSPAMgmailco@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Dan C <youmustbejoking@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2008.06.04.15.41.05.687597@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:15:06 +0000, theBZA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> While I'm certainly no Yank fan, you're a moron.  The correct math
>>>>>> involved with those numbers is 300%, dimwit.  The number "9" is
>>>>>> three times as big as the number "3", which makes it 300%.
>>>>> Not again. 9 is most definitely *not* 300% better than 3. If it
>>>>> were, then 3 would be 100% better than 3. 3 is not better than 3.
>>>>> Learn some math.
>>>> Damn, you're even dumber than the other moron.  Look again, dimwit. 
>>>> I didn't use the word "better", I said "bigger".  The number 9 is
>>>> 300% of the number 3, simple as that.
>>>>
>>> Original post:
>>> "200% better"
>>>
>>> So what you are saying is that you changed the basis of the argument
>>> just so you would have something to argue against. That is called a
>>> strawman and it shows that you are deliberately and incredibly
>>> dishonest.
>>>
>>>> Your statement of "3 would be 100% better than 3" just doesn't even
>>>> make sense.  3 is equal to 3, doofus.  Bugger off and STFU.  You
>>>> shouldn't have dropped out at 4th grade.
>>>>
>>> You are still wrong and that's the funny part. If 9 is "300% bigger
>>> than 3" then 3 is 100% bigger than 3. And it isn't. So stop and think
>>> before you call people moron. You cannot debate and you cannot
>>> multiply. So I have ask: who is doing the typing for you?
>>>
>>>
>> just to put this stupid argument to rest, 50% of 100 = 100 * 50/100 =
>> 50.. therefore 300% of 100 = 100 * 300/100 = 300 and 200% of 100 = 100
>> * 200/100 = 200.
>> so basically, you take the % amt, divide it by 100 then multiply that
>> by the original number so 100% of a number is equal to that number,
>> 200% is twice that number and 300% is 3 times that number. and of
>> course 50% is half that number.
>> class dismissed. 
>>
>>
> Your statements are correct if not applicable. You left out the "better 
> than" part which implies subtraction. IOW, to determine how much better 
> 9 is than 3, you have to first subtract 3 from 9 to find the differnece,

> which is 6. 6 is that amount that 9 is better than 3 by. And, as you did

> point out correctly, 6 is 200% of 3. Therefore, 9 is 200% better than 3.
> 
> Or:
> 3 is 0% better than 3
> 6 is 100% better than 3
> 9 is 200% better than 3
> 

The latest news:

Yankees 800% better than the Blue Jays.

:-)

Which MUST be better than 200$!

mario in victoria
-- 
i know, but i couldn't resist