Harlan wrote in message ...


....[illiterate post snipped]

Calm down, take it easy. Take a deep breath, before you start ranting
at the keyboard. If English is not your first language Mr. Grove, then
have someone check your posts for you. The uninformed may abandon your
posts, mistaking the writer for an utter illiterate moron, and
unfortunately missing the content's obvious value.

In addition pertinent details are lost in your long-winded unnecessary
discourses. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands so i'd
advise a lesson or two should be learnt from other more respected
contributors. You could do no worse than start with Tom Ogilvy's posts
precise, logical and succinct arguments.

Here's a novel idea, with your next paycheck from Gates, go buy
yourself a dictionary.

I've passed your post through spell checker for the benefit of users
with more delicate sensibilities than myself and I am reposting it
below.

Samuel

The remainder of your argument (which I recognize was tongue in cheek) relied
upon the OP either accepting that all outcomes should occur as frequently as any
others based on the flawed assumption that there's some sort of self-correcting
mechanism to do so or you're interpreting the OP's intent opposite to how I've
done.

It's bad enough to find the most frequent historical 4-ball combination and
assume that means it's more likely to recur, then augment it with all other
2-ball combinations to pick 'winning' numbers - given 49 balls, (45 choose 2) =
990 6-ball combinations. If the most frequent 4-ball combination is considered
*unlikely* to recur, there'd be (46 choose 6) - (45 choose 2) = 13,982,826
possible 6-ball combinations that have no more than 3 out of 4 of the numbers
from the historically most frequent 4-ball combination.

If you had meant to dissuade the OP from proceeding with this exercise, I
believe you should have been more explicit.

Unless you have some new revelation on the basic concepts of probability
related to lottery numbers that I don't understand, and I doubt it, don't
see much reason to waste further disk space on this.

Provided above. Guess this allows me to repost, huh?

In case it hasn't become obvious to you, I have no qualms about wasting bandwidth
on pointless replies. Thanks for the invitation.

wrote in message . com...
Harlan wrote in message ...


...[illiterate post snipped]

Calm down, take it easy. Take a deep breath, before you start ranting
at the keyboard. If English is not your first language Mr. Grove, then
have someone check your posts for you. The uninformed may abandon your
posts, mistaking the writer for an utter illiterate moron, and
unfortunately missing the content's obvious value.

In addition pertinent details are lost in your long-winded unnecessary
discourses. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands so i'd
advise a lesson or two should be learnt from other more respected
contributors. You could do no worse than start with Tom Ogilvy's posts
precise, logical and succinct arguments.

Here's a novel idea, with your next paycheck from Gates, go buy
yourself a dictionary.

I've passed your post through spell checker for the benefit of users
with more delicate sensibilities than myself and I am reposting it
below.

Samuel

The remainder of your argument (which I recognize was tongue in cheek) relied
upon the OP either accepting that all outcomes should occur as frequently as any
others based on the flawed assumption that there's some sort of self-correcting
mechanism to do so or you're interpreting the OP's intent opposite to how I've
done.

It's bad enough to find the most frequent historical 4-ball combination and
assume that means it's more likely to recur, then augment it with all other
2-ball combinations to pick 'winning' numbers - given 49 balls, (45 choose 2) =
990 6-ball combinations. If the most frequent 4-ball combination is considered
*unlikely* to recur, there'd be (46 choose 6) - (45 choose 2) = 13,982,826
possible 6-ball combinations that have no more than 3 out of 4 of the numbers
from the historically most frequent 4-ball combination.

If you had meant to dissuade the OP from proceeding with this exercise, I
believe you should have been more explicit.

Unless you have some new revelation on the basic concepts of probability
related to lottery numbers that I don't understand, and I doubt it, don't
see much reason to waste further disk space on this.

Provided above. Guess this allows me to repost, huh?

In case it hasn't become obvious to you, I have no qualms about wasting bandwidth
on pointless replies. Thanks for the invitation.

Harlan, while passing the Salvation Army store, I spotted a secondhand
copy of 'The Charlie Brown Dictionary Set' in the window. I was
immediately reminded of your deficiencies and without hesitation I
have purchased said copy. I recommend this as a reasonable starting
point.

Drop me a line and it's yours free of charge. I hope this gesture will
be received with the spirit in which it is offered.

Samuel.

Please remove obvious spam trap if u wish to reply by email.

Another form of an English (UK/Australian) idiomatic expression ?


You could do no worse than start with Tom Ogilvy's posts
precise, logical and succinct arguments.

Not any more meaningful or complementary (if you read the words)
than similar words I've seen and heard in other postings.
..
You could do worse than going to Stephen Bullen's pages.

Gee, you can spell! And you've got time to check your messages thoroughly for
spelling errors! Well done!

Pity the remainder of your education was such a waste.

" wrote...
...
. . .The uninformed may abandon your posts, . . .

Well, you're near the top of the charts when it comes to being uninformed (or
should that be lacking capacity to acquire and process information), but you
seem to keep chuggin' along.

...a lesson or two should be learnt from other more respected contributors...

Only if there were lessons that I wanted to learn. Others may deal with idiots
like you either by being patient with or by ignoring them. In extreme cases,
like you, I choose to point out their manifest intellectual poverty and almost
complete lack of cognitive ability (credit where due: you seem to be able to use
a spell checker).

. . . You could do no worse than start with Tom Ogilvy's posts . . .

There are rare occasions on which I'd fully agree with this. Tom is sometimes a
bit too dry.

The only question here is whether you understand what you wrote. Unlikely, but
you're the self-proclaimed paragon of literacy.

Here's a novel idea, with your next paycheck from Gates, go buy
yourself a dictionary.
...

Are your under the impression that I work for Microsoft? Or are you aware that
someone like billg, who has demonstrated similarly little patience with fools,
would reward me for treating you in a manner he'd likely do himself?

If I worked for Microsoft, I'd have told you to buy an upgrade because it'd
handle lottery number analysis much better than the version you're using. If
you're going to be wasting money, might as well send some my way first.

--
Never attach files.
Snip unnecessary quoted text.
Never multipost (though crossposting is usually OK).
Don't change subject lines because it corrupts Google newsgroup archives.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:18:49 GMT, Harlan wrote:

If you're going to be wasting money, might as well send some my way first.

ROFL!