I looked it up in 5 seconds.
Wow ! Exactly my point.A "point" lost on everybody.
She set you up and you took the bait like a catfish. The bottom feeder you are.
You are so toast. Go get another profile set up...hop is done.
Pops...ever time you post, this is going to follow you...You are the one that doesn't understand...
The payments should equal the receipts. It does not make sense to add what was paid by the men ($12) to what was received from that payment by the waiter ($2)Although the initial bill was $15 dollars, one of the five dollar notes gets changed into five ones. The total the three men ultimately paid is $12, as they get three ones back. So from the $12 the men paid, the owner receives $10 and the waiter receives the $2 difference. $15 - $3 = $10 + $2
Nice copy and paste http://www.folj.com/puzzles/
You have just been busted!The payments should equal the receipts. It does not make sense to add what was paid by the men ($12) to what was received from that payment by the waiter ($2)
Although the initial bill was $15 dollars, one of the five dollar notes gets changed into five ones. The total the three men ultimately paid is $12, as they get three ones back. So from the $12 the men paid, the owner receives $10 and the waiter receives the $2 difference. $15 - $3 = $10 + $2
my point is and was i have no ill will going into this convo about penn state!
psu-lioness, it wasnt lost on me, i knew the answer, i didnt google anything! this brain teaser has been around since i was in high school!Denny my responses were directed at HOP. I am sorry if I offended you but HOP only comes around (many alias) to instigate.
jonvi, i never condemmed everyone at penn state and yes i know there are alot of good people at penn state and i know alot of alunni! i still go up once a year for a game! and yes i agree i know not all at psu are or were involved, i dont think i ever said that they all were!
Pops...ever time you post, this is going to follow you...You are the one that doesn't understand...
The payments should equal the receipts. It does not make sense to add what was paid by the men ($12) to what was received from that payment by the waiter ($2)
Although the initial bill was $15 dollars, one of the five dollar notes gets changed into five ones. The total the three men ultimately paid is $12, as they get three ones back. So from the $12 the men paid, the owner receives $10 and the waiter receives the $2 difference. $15 - $3 = $10 + $2
Nice copy and paste http://www.folj.com/puzzles/
You have just been busted!The payments should equal the receipts. It does not make sense to add what was paid by the men ($12) to what was received from that payment by the waiter ($2)
Although the initial bill was $15 dollars, one of the five dollar notes gets changed into five ones. The total the three men ultimately paid is $12, as they get three ones back. So from the $12 the men paid, the owner receives $10 and the waiter receives the $2 difference. $15 - $3 = $10 + $2
Well hop on Pop and DennyThat was not an example of logic at all. Allow me to demonstrate:
The reason I copied that specific question was to prove my point. It is easy to find in a short amount of time doing a search. The response supported my experiment.
I would say my logic was spot on!
but nics from other schools who will supposedly spend thier whole life and honor defending to the death JoePa
the guy who carried Sandusky's water for so long enabling him to molest boys. (but at least not rich kids!)
who argues all day long to protect the child molesters. 
So whatevs, right?Logic tells us that JoePa was involved. When the emails surfaced....where Sandusky's crimes were about to be reported as they should have been...and then its stated "after talking to Joe..."JoePa changed their minds about reporting this so the reputation of PSU would not be tarnished from the revelation of Sandusky's crimes. They decided to not report these crimes and hoped no one would ever find out about them. They all ignored the danger children were in when around Sandusky. For years afterward, when Sandusky was taking boys to team meetings, to watch the games on the sidelines, to banquets for the team and for overnight stays in hotels following the team...these men who knew what Sandusky did to minor children all looked the other way.
Three e-mails surfaced from Tim Curley, Graham Spanier, and Gary Schultz that said:
Curley: I had scheduled a meeting with you about the subject we discussed Sunday. After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone, except the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we have no choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?
Spanier: This approach is acceptable to me. I requires you to go a step further and means that your conversition will be all the more difficult, but I admire your willingness to do that and I am supportive. The only downside for us is that if the message isn't heard and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assesed down the road. The approach you describe is humane and a reasonable way to procede.
Schultz: This is a more humane and upfront way to handle this. I can support this approach, with the understanding that we will inform his organization, with or without his cooperation. ( I think that's what Tim proposed) We can play it by ear about the other organization.
These three e-mails are what Louis Freeh and everyone else used to conclude that Curley/Schultz/Spanier/Paterno chose to cover up Sandusky's actions to avoid bad publicity for the football program. First of all, they never mention anything about football. Second, Gary Schultz makes a point to say that they will be telling the Second Mile no matter what. Tell me, if you are trying to cover something up, why would you tell other people any information??? Why wouldn't they just say let's handle this ourselves and not tell anyone else?? Not to mention that they are openly communicating on University e-mail that can be traced through the data systems. If you're going to cover up a crime, why send it through the web for the entire world to see??
Second, we have no idea what was said between Joe Paterno (assuming that "Joe" is him) and Tim Curley. The Paterno family has come out and said that they believe Joe suggested that they not rush to conclusions and talk to Sandusky first before doing anything. You have to remember a few things. 1: Sandusky was looked at as a hero by many many people. The Second Mile was a huge children's charity that was endorsed by two United States' Presidents (Bush Sr., Clinton) We are looking at this in hindsight. Try putting yourself in their shoes in 2001. Sandusky was regarded as a saint. You don't just go accusing someone like that without even talking to them first. Yet, people took that one e-mail and concluded that Paterno was the ring-leader in a huge cover up to protect the football program.
Third, Mike McQueary testified that he was never told by the four men to not talk about the incident he saw with Sandusky and the boy. If you were trying to cover something up, why wouldn't you tell the key witness to shut up and let you handle it? In fact, McQueary has said that Joe Paterno talked to him a few months later to see how he was feeling emotionally about the incident. McQueary said that everything was fine.
Fourth, Graham Spanier explained in an interview with ABC that his comment about "if the message isn't heard then they can be vulnerable about not reporting it" refers to Sandusky not getting the message that they don't want him showering with kids because it is inappropriate. He explained that their thinking was that Sandusky could do that again and that could get everyone into trouble. They never mention abuse, rape, sodomy etc. All they were talking about was showering. In hindsight, was this a huge mistake? Yes. But do these three e-mails scream cover up to avoid bad publicity for the football program? NO. Look, there could have been a cover up to avoid bad publicity, but the evidence here does not prove that at all. This is why we need to wait for the trials before making judgement. If there is evidence that comes out that is the smoking gun that proves there was a cover up, I will accept it. I am not in denial or a cultist. I just want to see everything before making judgement. If this is all the evidence there is, you will never convince me that there was a cover up to avoid bad publicity. The evidence is just not there in these e-mails.
The date/time stamp is the poof HOPONPOP is a fraud....now a liar:
February 2, 2013 1:38 pm Posted by lioness:
The source ? The source about you only having a high school education was you ! I merely pointed out it could be the reason you fail to comprehend why JoePa is believed to be involved in the coverup.
They don't teach logic in high school. They do in college. Had you gone to college you would have had an opportunity to take that class.
Logic tells us that JoePa was involved. When the emails surfaced....where Sandusky's crimes were about to be reported as they should have been...and then its stated "after talking to Joe..."
Then suddenly the call is made to cover it up..
Well logic tells us that JoePa told them not to do the right thing. He decided it would tarnish the football program. He probably felt the news of this coming out may in fact cost him his job and any chance at the win record.
Logic tells us JoePa himself had the most to gain if Sandusky's crimes went unreported.
They teach logic in math class TD. My recollection of problem solving began in 4th or 5th grade math. Here is an example
Three men in a cafe order a meal the total cost of which is $15. They each contribute $5. The waiter takes the money to the chef who recognizes the three as friends and asks the waiter to return $5 to the men.
The waiter is not only poor at mathematics but dishonest and instead of going to the trouble of splitting the $5 between the three he simply gives them $1 each and pockets the remaining $2 for himself.
Now, each of the men effectively paid $4, the total paid is therefore $12. Add the $2 in the waiters pocket and this comes to $14.....where has the other $1 gone from the original $15?
The area you appear to have an aptitude in is to incite, personally I find that to be a poor skill.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
--------------
February 2, 2013 1:47 pm posted by HopOnPop
They teach logic in math class TD. My recollection of problem solving began in 4th or 5th grade math. Here is an example
Three men in a cafe order a meal the total cost of which is $15. They each contribute $5. The waiter takes the money to the chef who recognizes the three as friends and asks the waiter to return $5 to the men.
The waiter is not only poor at mathematics but dishonest and instead of going to the trouble of splitting the $5 between the three he simply gives them $1 each and pockets the remaining $2 for himself.
Now, each of the men effectively paid $4, the total paid is therefore $12. Add the $2 in the waiters pocket and this comes to $14.....where has the other $1 gone from the original $15?
The payments should equal the receipts. It does not make sense to add what was paid by the men ($12) to what was received from that payment by the waiter ($2)
Although the initial bill was $15 dollars, one of the five dollar notes gets changed into five ones. The total the three men ultimately paid is $12, as they get three ones back. So from the $12 the men paid, the owner receives $10 and the waiter receives the $2 difference. $15 - $3 = $10 + $2
