EPTBrood War Players Numerology - Page 8
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
| ||
|
Ydriel
Italy516 Posts
| ||
|
Z3kk
4099 Posts
On April 14 2011 15:20 Kashll wrote: Why the hell is this featured is the real question. I agree lol It's just for fun has nothing really cool at all to offer imho ._. | ||
|
leakingpear
United Kingdom302 Posts
| ||
|
Arcanefrost
Belgium1257 Posts
| ||
|
ramen-
90 Posts
On topic, ramen turns out to be a 6. I guess tasty food only wants to be eaten? | ||
|
guts86
Germany8 Posts
| ||
|
Exawn
Netherlands13 Posts
x = 6 a = 1 w = 5 n = 5 --- 22 ? or 4 ? Should it stay on 22, or does it become 4? And R = 9 u = 3 u = 3 d = 4 -- 19 = 10 ? = 1? So it becomes 1, right? | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES51099 Posts
On April 14 2011 17:24 Exawn wrote: E = 5 x = 6 a = 1 w = 5 n = 5 --- 22 Should it stay on 22, or does it become 4? 4 | ||
|
Exawn
Netherlands13 Posts
How do you ever get 22? | ||
|
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES51099 Posts
I don't know....I think its 4. oh and I think this is featured because of rare waffle sightings. | ||
|
Godstorm
Romania845 Posts
| ||
|
ShinySleepy
Philippines80 Posts
| ||
|
Pixilated
United States82 Posts
Also, the OP makes some interesting unreferenced claims such as "Many of the prominant generals throughout history are also 1." That's something that could be researched, although it would be a lot of effort to debunk something that is already rather simple to disprove.  | ||
|
Neobick
Sweden208 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On April 14 2011 20:19 Pixilated wrote: I don't quite understand the appeal of doing the math for things like these when in reality it's just pseudoscience like astrology or anything else. I'm surprised to see a thread like this get popular on TL; I thought that the folks here were pretty skeptically inclined. It would be fun to design an experiment to test the validity of this though. Perhaps as someone else suggested, if everyone were to read each description and choose the personality that most represented them prior to calculating their number. Even an informal test like that would be fun. ^^ Also, the OP makes some interesting unreferenced claims such as "Many of the prominant generals throughout history are also 1." That's something that could be researched, although it would be a lot of effort to debunk something that is already rather simple to disprove. Well my source at the bottom of the page is where it brings up the reference to generals usually being a 1. If you read the definition of 1 it's in their too. I did not need to research what has already been proven. I'm not just making it up. But maybe the website is <.< Also, 22 is 22, not 4 | ||
|
Kuzmorgo
Hungary1058 Posts
... pls ppl, don't make me dissapointed by joining in this crap. This is even worse than I may be overreacting. Maybe 99% of you guys don't believe a word of it, just calculate ure whatever-numbers for fun. I just hope that is the case... | ||
|
Pixilated
United States82 Posts
On April 14 2011 20:29 BisuDagger wrote: Well my source at the bottom of the page is where it brings up the reference to generals usually being a 1. If you read the definition of 1 it's in their too. I did not need to research what has already been proven. I'm not just making it up. But maybe the website is <.< Yeah, the site that you linked didn't cite the source for that claim either. I suspect that even if we were to agree on who throughout history could be considered a general and did the numerology calculations for all of them, that the distribution of generals would probably be evenly spread among all the number possibilities. The best part though is that this is a testable empirical claim, so we shouldn't take my word for it. Oh and somewhat off topic perhaps, but just to clarify, what specifically did you mean by "I did not need to research what has already been proven"? I don't quite understand this. Hooray skepticism! ^^ | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
 | ||
|
rexob
Sweden202 Posts
| ||
| ||
