Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 62649	2005-10-14 20:00:00	Evolutıon????	farukmert (9073)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
396315	2005-10-18 08:56:00	I'm sure we can all see the 666 analysis for what it is but for the sake of pointing out some of the more obvious flaws : I'm not sure Bill Gates would write his name as 'BILLGATESIII'. Where are the spaces? A space was included in MS-DOS. Why not there? Veryhardtoreadotherwise. And why use the value 1 for the upper case I when the ASCII value of 73 was used for 'I' earlier? People don't write Charles 111 - they write Charles III (if they are pompous enough). Furthermore, the ASCII value of 1 is not 1! If we took the ASCII values for his actual name of 'Bill Gates III' then you get a value of 1170 - which is quite a bit higher than 666 (and 999!). Although it is 504 higher than 666, and we all know 666 less 162 also equals 504, and 162 is perfectly divisible by the numbers 2, 3, 6 and 9! So isn't that proof enough that this is self-referential and, qed, it must be true! What's true? That maths, as we know it, actually works and Bill's father was Bill Gates II. Although I suspect his birth name is William? (I could be wrong, unless he named himself at birth). HOWEVER, if you use the slang version of that name and mangle it like this : "I'Billy." then without the 2 outer quotes the ASCII characters DO ACTUALLY add up to 666 - so what further proof do we need? The maths really works! But seriously, why leave the space out of the Windows 95 example and yet include it for MS-DOS? Also, why was 1 added to Windows 95? To make it work perhaps? Pfft, yet another e-myth.... A	andrew93 (249)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11