It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# The Orlando sacirifce in preparation for the BRexit vote

page: 5
16
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:32 PM

The numbers came from experience that were had through things that we cannot speak of on ATS.

Oh.
In that case, if we can't speak of it on ATS, it must be true.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:33 PM

I believe everything I was told in school.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:34 PM

1+2=3 is correct. But to get the six month you would need to take the equation and the answer together to get 6. What's the point of the equation in the first place?

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:34 PM
I don't believe anything if it doesn't make sense.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:35 PM

I have a counter question for you...

Are you asking a question you know the answer to instead of just saying what you mean in the first place?

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:36 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:38 PM

You mean where people just agree with me? That's a forum that's hard to find and what would be the point?
Or is that what you're looking for? In which case, you may be on the wrong site entirely.
edit on 6/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:39 PM

I'm looking to have a discussion with like minds not deal with ignorant skepticism.
edit on 6/29/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:40 PM

originally posted by: onequestion

I have a counter question for you...

Are you asking a question you know the answer to instead of just saying what you mean in the first place?

Yes, I am. It's simply this.

The same 1+2=3 has been used in so many different forms to suit whatever they/you want it to. It's also been used as a 2 (1+3=4 / 2=2) and whatever other variant there can be.

1+2=3 does not equal 1+2+3.

It's simply used to fit whatever it needs to fit to.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:41 PM

I'm looking to have a discussion with like minds

Yeah. I notice.
You don't like it when people disagree with you.

Numerology is nonsense. No different than reading tea leaves.

edit on 6/29/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:42 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:42 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:43 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:43 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:44 PM

## ENOUGH!!!

Stop the bickering NOW.

You can either discuss the thread topic, or we will shut this down NOW.

No GATEKEEPING.

ALL opinions are welcome here.

Do not reply to this post.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:45 PM

To offer counterpoint.
Discussion.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:45 PM

It's got nothing to do with believing in it or not. I'm just showing the many ways it's flawed and manipulated to fit whatever the current "in topic" is.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:52 PM

originally posted by: Phage

The "numerology" of the ancients led to Euclid , Pythagoras , the Golden Ratio and others .

No. The numbers came first. For counting bushels of wheat and casks of beer.
Later people starting playing silly games with them.

Which , is precisely what I said. Notice how I did not take "numbers" all the way back to the beginning ? No comment on the statement that is where certain "advanced" mathematics started ? Noticing that numbers were relevant to the world around them . Not just for counting at the point in time .
Pythagoras didnt pull the math behind Hypotenuse and Cathetus (sp? , I am doing this from memory) out his rear. They ideas came from his observance of nature.
And again , I do not fully believe in numerology .Only in its relation to the history of advanced math . But , and there is always one in the group , there is something to be said in defense.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:52 PM

If the UK was aloud to leave the EU it was done with intent.

Allowed. If the UK was 'allowed', not 'aloud'.
Aloud is to state something that others can hear, not just think it.

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:53 PM

originally posted by: angeldoll

If the UK was aloud to leave the EU it was done with intent.

Allowed. If the UK was 'allowed', not 'aloud'.
Aloud is to state something that others can hear, not just think it.

Woops.

Thanks mom.

new topics

16