Time to quantify individual numerologist blog posts and videos based on how bad the information provided is. Sum the points up higher totals equate to worse information.
Type 1 - Unsubstantiated number generation. If I use simple gematria and don't total the same number you used I assume you just made the number up. Score= 1 point.
Type 2 - Use of multiple numbering systems in the same comparison. If multiple Charles = "x" in reverse and "x" in Jewish it just proves that you take the same raw data and can get multiple results from it. Score = 1 point per different system used.
Type 3 - Use of any result less than four digits - 1 point. It's way too easy. I can do it. You do it all the time. It's all about taking a large chunk of data and turning it into small data. This is how you get two greatly diverse things like "iced tea with lemon" and "toy train set" to be the same. (both=166 in simple gematria). 1 point each occurrence.
Type 4 - Use of letter reductions. I mean, really....karaoke isn't karaoke anymore because you reduced the k from the total. 2 points each time.
Type 5 - Changing a number directly or indirectly into another number. 37 didn't suit you, so write it out as thirty seven and change the value. Also includes "close enough" assumptions such as 133=313. Sorry, 133=133. Also includes changing a date in a manner such as counting how many days it is until the end of a year to change January 2 to 364, and such. Includes number lists such as where a number falls in list I prime numbers. 3 points.
Type 6 - Errors of commonality. The seeming shock and surprise about mundane coincidences that are made when something happens that is really quite ordinary. For example, the last name Moore is the 9th most common name in the US. People wear blue colored clothes. Etc.... 3 points.
Type 7 - Nickname and synonym substitution in same comparison. Really a subset of type 5. Use Bob and Robert. Comic and Comedian. Black and Slave. 3 points.
Type 8 - Use of huge data set as source. Includes, but not limited to sports statistics, TV and movies, famous historical events covering a large number of dates. 1 point.
Type 9 - Reporting on a partial total. Who cares that at one point in the middle if Jeopardy! someone had $2,200 when they ended the game with $11,500? 3 points. Try and fund a football game where it wasn't 2nd and 10 at some point.
Type 10- Use of any of the following words and their variants. Troll, Shill, Free Mason, synch, others to be added later. Response to valid criticism is too easily brushed aside by attacking the attacker and dismissing them as a 'troll'. You're not 'synching' but picking and choosing what you compare with the attention span if a two year old. 5 points.
Type 11 - Factual errors. 22/7 is not Pi. Wolverines have little to do with wolves other than the name. I still have no idea where the death toll for the pilgrimage gone awry came from, but it's not even close. 15 points.
Type 12 - Unprovable events, believable. You just turned on the TV and saw the actor you just talked about. In addition to a possible type 6 scores for not being able to be substantiated by a reputable, unbiased source. 2 points.
Type 13 - Unprovable events, not believable. For things that are a real stretch of the imagination. Even if somebody misspelled Kirk Cameron's last name, you realm think all these cosmic events fell into place to synch up with your number of the day? Yfr.
Type 14 - Commonly debunked conspiracies. I can almost understand that there's enough evidence that the JFK assassination went down differently (somewhat from ) than the reported version. But we are well beyond things like thinking the Earth is flat. It's not. Live with it. 8 points.
That covers the major issues for now. There's still the global issues like different languages, therefore different spellings, contradictory results, and lack if any predetermined structure to deal with to prevent someone like me using the same data to get different conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment