From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 23:22:33 PST
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 05:45, Bert Sevenhant wrote: > Dear Ed Murphy, > Dear bd, > Dear David L Nicol, > Dear Jonathan Van Matre, > and other esteemed members of the FRC, > > My quest to understand the degrees of members is getting more intriguing. > > I found that there is a geographical representation of the degrees. > Each degree can be identified with a place on the globe. > A degree placed more east than an other is considered to be greater. > If two degrees are on the same meridian, they are considered both greater > and lesser than each other. > (This representation was the conclusion of a talk called > "the projective plane used to represent degrees of the FRC", > held to an audience of earth scientists.) > > The next poster should explain which is the 6th degree > or give the position of degree Q on the globe. > > Degree 2 (New York) is higher than degree 1 (Los Angeles) (and Q). > > All future rules should refer to a scientific talk. > > Bert Sevenhant (deg. 2) No problems, despite being increasingly counterintuitive. VALID, +2.7 style. +1.0 Follows theme +1.0 More specific about comparisons +0.5 Follows own restriction on future rules +0.5 Increasingly counterintuitive -0.3 Three counts of awkward grammar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST