At 07:26 AM 10/16/98 -0700, tyr31416 wrote:
> I see no legitimate reason for a number like 5,299,999 to
>be called "around 5,200,000" in any case it should be called around
>5,300,000.
The way we remember things, a person could just remember 5,2xx,xxx, and that
could be called "around 5,200,000". For instance, I don't remember the
current
GIMPs record except that it is in the low 3 million range. 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
million - something like that. So I would say "Around 3.1 million." So
something like 5,279,211 would be considered around 5,200,000 even though
it is
closer to 5,300,000.
+------------------------------------------+
| Jud McCranie [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
+------------------------------------------+
