John Smith wrote:[color=blue]
> Lets see... "VISTA"
>
> VI = 6 in Roman Numericals
> ST = 6 in the ancient Greek numericals
> so we have the first 2 sixes of 666,
>
> the build of vista RTM is
> 6000- 16386 061101-2205
>
> We got one more 6 from the version YES VISTA IS WINDOWS VERSION 6, now lets
> add the rest of the numbers. and
> we got
>
> 16386+
> 061101+
> 2205 =79692 and then we have
>
> 7+9+6+9+2 = 33
> and
>
> 3+3 = 6
>
> so there we have one more 6 !!!
>
> ALSO Vista could pronounced VEESTA or VEASTA or BEAST-A
> or the number "A" Beast also called "The FIRST BEAST"
>
> so from all the above we conclude that Vista is in fact demonic!
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

You assume that the Christian beast/anti Christ crap is true. It isn't.

Alias

The only problem is that the way you STARTED out is different than how you
finished. You started with using the letters that make up Vista. VI then
ST....but you forgot to use the A. So your theory is wrong right there.
Sorry nothing demonic about it. If you start with using the Letters for
Vista you have to finish with them. Plus your calculations are wrong for
another reason. It is not Vista. It is technically Windows Vista. So
that throws your calculations off even more.

Try again and thank you for playing.

--
~Alex T~
..:MVP Windows Shell/User:.

"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message news:fm7n19$gjr$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> John Smith wrote:[color=green]
>> Lets see... "VISTA"
>>
>> VI = 6 in Roman Numericals
>> ST = 6 in the ancient Greek numericals
>> so we have the first 2 sixes of 666,
>>
>> the build of vista RTM is
>> 6000- 16386 061101-2205
>>
>> We got one more 6 from the version YES VISTA IS WINDOWS VERSION 6, now
>> lets
>> add the rest of the numbers. and
>> we got
>>
>> 16386+
>> 061101+
>> 2205 =79692 and then we have
>>
>> 7+9+6+9+2 = 33
>> and
>>
>> 3+3 = 6
>>
>> so there we have one more 6 !!!
>>
>> ALSO Vista could pronounced VEESTA or VEASTA or BEAST-A
>> or the number "A" Beast also called "The FIRST BEAST"
>>
>> so from all the above we conclude that Vista is in fact demonic!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
> You assume that the Christian beast/anti Christ crap is true. It isn't.
>
> Alias[/color]

Bummer. I was so looking forward to
ruling all the world.

--
Curt


"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message news:fm7n19$gjr$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> John Smith wrote:[color=green]
>> Lets see... "VISTA"
>>
>> VI = 6 in Roman Numericals
>> ST = 6 in the ancient Greek numericals
>> so we have the first 2 sixes of 666,
>>
>> the build of vista RTM is
>> 6000- 16386 061101-2205
>>
>> We got one more 6 from the version YES VISTA IS WINDOWS VERSION 6, now
>> lets
>> add the rest of the numbers. and
>> we got
>>
>> 16386+
>> 061101+
>> 2205 =79692 and then we have
>>
>> 7+9+6+9+2 = 33
>> and
>>
>> 3+3 = 6
>>
>> so there we have one more 6 !!!
>>
>> ALSO Vista could pronounced VEESTA or VEASTA or BEAST-A
>> or the number "A" Beast also called "The FIRST BEAST"
>>
>> so from all the above we conclude that Vista is in fact demonic!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
> You assume that the Christian beast/anti Christ crap is true. It isn't.
>
> Alias[/color]

~Alex~.:MVP Windows Shell/User:. wrote:[color=blue]
> The only problem is that the way you STARTED out is different than
> how you finished. You started with using the letters that make up
> Vista. VI then ST....but you forgot to use the A. So your theory is
> wrong right there. Sorry nothing demonic about it. If you start with
> using the Letters for Vista you have to finish with them.[/color]

That just proves that Vista is demonically Canadian, eh?
[color=blue]
> Plus your calculations are wrong for another reason. It is not
> Vista. It is technically Windows Vista. So that throws your
> calculations off even more.[/color]

Oh? Have you actually DONE the calculations? How do you know? :)

David
Stardate 8029.8

--
Practice the Klingon language on the tlhIngan Hol MUSH.
[url]http://trimboli.name/klingon/mush.html[/url]

In article <4787db65$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>,
John Smith <john@smith.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>Since such things cannot be verified or not, I think I am statistically less
>in error than you.[/color]

Lol. "Since you can't prove it false it's likely to be true"

Would that be ad ignorantiam or just bifurcation?

[url]http://tinyurl.com/28yfmh[/url]

(Requires Flash plug-in.)

--
Bob