Is it worth $15 to go to premiere package from COX - 4000/512 ---> 5000/768 ?

Actually I see no problems in his quote. Your quote of "U see my meaning." however is problematic....

No. 100 is only *2%* of 5000

Your point being?

If you are *still* convinced that going from 4000 to 5000 is only an increase of 20%, and that going from 512 to 768 is only an increase of 34%, then you need a math tutor or, better yet, more schooling.

}Lonnie wrote: } }> }Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is }> }25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease* }> }of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes... }> }a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from }> }5000. }> }> and 100 is 20% of 5000 } }No. 100 is only *2%* of 5000 } }> }As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase* }> }of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512 }> }is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is }> }the same amount as 33.3% of 768. }> }> same as above } }Your point being? } }If you are *still* convinced that going from 4000 to 5000 is only an }increase of 20%, and that going from 512 to 768 is only an increase }of 34%, then you need a math tutor or, better yet, more schooling.

read the whole thread scholar

}Lonnie wrote: } }> }Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is }> }25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease* }> }of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes... }> }a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from }> }5000. }> }> and 100 is 20% of 5000 } }No. 100 is only *2%* of 5000 } }> }As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase* }> }of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512 }> }is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is }> }the same amount as 33.3% of 768. }> }> same as above } }Your point being? } }If you are *still* convinced that going from 4000 to 5000 is only an }increase of 20%, and that going from 512 to 768 is only an increase }of 34%, then you need a math tutor or, better yet, more schooling.

I mentioned this a while ago:

}Remember, it is an increase or decrease from a *starting value*. } }[Math class is now excused.]

My statement

I stand corrected. I did the procedure wrong.

Perhaps you could benefit from the daily math problem on Yahoo ;-) I look at it almost everyday just to make sure I remember how to solve simple problems.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:59:24 -0400, Brian wrote:

}Lonnie wrote: }> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:33:30 -0700, ric wrote: }> }> }Lonnie wrote: }> } }> }> }Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is }> }> }25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease* }> }> }of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes... }> }> }a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from }> }> }5000. }> }> }> }> and 100 is 20% of 5000 }> } }> }No. 100 is only *2%* of 5000 }> } }> }> }As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase* }> }> }of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512 }> }> }is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is }> }> }the same amount as 33.3% of 768. }> }> }> }> same as above }> } }> }Your point being? }> } }> }If you are *still* convinced that going from 4000 to 5000 is only an }> }increase of 20%, and that going from 512 to 768 is only an increase }> }of 34%, then you need a math tutor or, better yet, more schooling. }> }> I mentioned this a while ago: }> }> }Remember, it is an increase or decrease from a *starting value*. }> } }> }[Math class is now excused.] }> }> My statement }> }> I stand corrected. I did the procedure wrong. }> }> } }Perhaps you could benefit from the daily math problem on Yahoo ;-) I }look at it almost everyday just to make sure I remember how to solve }simple problems. } }

Did you even check out that link? Probably not. You see where the ;-) is? Probably didn't see that either did you? See where I said that I check out that link almost everyday in order to check my basic math skills (well and to solve boredom at work)? You probably only saw another person screwing with you about your wrong public math. Well you might consider reading it again. I wasn't poking fun at you, so calm down. I merely like the link, and thought I would share it with /everyone/.

If you still don't see the true meaning of my post, and not what you are reading into it, then just ignore it and move on. I see what it says, and I'm sure everyone else does too.

Have a great day :-)

Nice link, but somewhat non challenging problems. About on par with the percentage increase problem detailed here. Thanks for the link.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:50:28 -0400, Brian wrote:

}Lonnie wrote: }> On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:59:24 -0400, Brian wrote: }> }> }Lonnie wrote: }> }> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:33:30 -0700, ric wrote: }> }> }> }> }Lonnie wrote: }> }> } }> }> }> }Duh...it's an increase of 1000 *from* 4000 *to* 5000. 1000 is }> }> }> }25% of 4000, so it is an *increase* of 25%. If it were a *decrease* }> }> }> }of 1000 from 5000 to 4000, it would be a *decrease* of 20%. Yes... }> }> }> }a 25% increase from 4000 is the same amount as a 20% decrease from }> }> }> }5000. }> }> }> }> }> }> and 100 is 20% of 5000 }> }> } }> }> }No. 100 is only *2%* of 5000 }> }> } }> }> }> }As above, an *increase* of 256 from 512 *to* 768 is an *increase* }> }> }> }of 50% (256 is 50% of 512.) A *decrease* of 256 from 768 *to* 512 }> }> }> }is a *decrease* of 33.3% (256 is 33.3% of 768.) Yes, 50% of 512 is }> }> }> }the same amount as 33.3% of 768. }> }> }> }> }> }> same as above }> }> } }> }> }Your point being? }> }> } }> }> }If you are *still* convinced that going from 4000 to 5000 is only an }> }> }increase of 20%, and that going from 512 to 768 is only an increase }> }> }of 34%, then you need a math tutor or, better yet, more schooling. }> }> }> }> I mentioned this a while ago: }> }> }> }> }Remember, it is an increase or decrease from a *starting value*. }> }> } }> }> }[Math class is now excused.] }> }> }> }> My statement }> }> }> }> I stand corrected. I did the procedure wrong. }> }> }> }> }> } }> }Perhaps you could benefit from the daily math problem on Yahoo ;-) I }> }look at it almost everyday just to make sure I remember how to solve }> }simple problems. }> } }> }

Well in general your responses to my original post were caustic so be careful you might get what you wish for.

} }Have a great day :-)

Do you know what this thread reminds me of?

Just like the theory on mail-in rebates (MIR). Most companies think a large percentage of people buying the product won't bother to mail in the rebate form. Which, to me, makes no sense. Unless there are a lot of Americans that just have money to throw around. I make a fairly attractive salary, but $15 is still $15.