ThePortForum.com

AHB wrote:

JWEW wrote:1966 Fonseca anyone?

The original line up, rather than the one shown, seems to match the event title.

So do we have an incorrect line up or an incorrect title?

What are you showing us? I've checked the BBR website and there's still no sign of any F66. But if it's there, I'll be even happier.

The listing that includes the F66 was from the pre-release events listing, the one sent out to account holders prior to general release

Glenn E. wrote:Zero was not a number as we know it until the 5th century, but even then it was really only used as a number in India.

I have just heard independent verification of this, which means we can be assured that at least one statement in this thread is true. Probably.

But now that it has all calmed down I will say that RAYC is representing the common understanding of 99% of the population here, including me, and the rest of you are talking nonsense. "The 20th Century" is the common description for the period from 1st Jan 1900 to 31st Dec 1999. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is just silly.

Just silly is a pretty good description for most things in the world, Derek.

No it isn't.

That's just being silly.

Wikipedea wrote:The 20th century was the period between January 1, 1901[1] and December 31, 2000,[2][3] inclusive. It was the tenth and last century of the 2nd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 1900s, which began on January 1, 1900 and ended December 31, 2000.

Now that is silly.

Nobody suggested that truth and stupidity were mutually exclusive.

DRT wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Zero was not a number as we know it until the 5th century, but even then it was really only used as a number in India.

I have just heard independent verification of this, which means we can be assured that at least one statement in this thread is true. Probably.

I am not sure zero is a number. Surely it is the absence of a number and put there just to make the rest of the system work? *prepares to be gunned down by people who do understand this*
Reliable facts on this thread: zero (or the bit in the middle of one and minus one).

PhilW wrote:Nobody suggested that truth and stupidity were mutually exclusive.

QED.

LGTrotter wrote:I am not sure zero is a number. Surely it is the absence of a number and put there just to make the rest of the system work? *prepares to be gunned down by people who do understand this*

You are correct and you are wrong.

You are correct to say that you aren’t sure.

But zero is a number. It took humanity some while to make the switch from numbers as adjectives (applicable, for example, to “green apples”) to numbers as abstract nouns (e.g., minus three). Numbers being abstract nouns is very powerful, as it allows the tools of mathematics to work, in turn allowing humanity to understand the quantum mechanics happening in the processor of the computer on which you are reading this.

So apart from the bit where I was wrong about everything, what I said was fine?

I still hold that from a philosophical view nothing can't be seen as something.

A quick search of Wiki tells me that 0 is both an integer and a real number. I therefore conclude that it is a number.

I scribbled some tasting notes at the Port Walk. Did anyone else make any and would be likely to post them if threads were created?

flash_uk wrote:I scribbled some tasting notes at the Port Walk. Did anyone else make any and would be likely to post them if threads were created?

Yes, and yes if they can be found.

flash_uk wrote:I scribbled some tasting notes at the Port Walk. Did anyone else make any and would be likely to post them if threads were created?

I did and will. I have a shed load of notes to post at some point soon.