Most incorrect thing you were taught?

Monty Burnz

Jernal wrote: »

Whatever about teachers. . .
Table quiz : simple Round 1 question what is shape of the planet Earth.

What the hell did they expect to say? A cube?

Turtwig

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What the hell did they expect to say? A cube?

They accepted "a globe" or "a sphere". Seriously I know this is really not the original topic of the Op but as you can see I never let it go. . .:)

Monty Burnz

Jernal wrote: »

They accepted "a globe" or "a sphere". Seriously I know this is really not the original topic of the Op but as you can see I never let it go. . .:)

Was this table quiz in a nursery school or something?

Question 2: What colour is the sky? ...

Turtwig

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Was this table quiz in a nursery school or something?

Question 2: What colour is the sky? ...

Primary school, serious enough competition too, prize wise anyway.

kylith

El Weirdo wrote: »

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, tbh.

I do love that sentence. For people interested in what the hell it means: 'buffalo' is, in some places, used as a synonym for bully, and Buffalo is an American city. Substituting more familar words it would read Dublin buffalo bully buffalo [that] Dublin buffalo bully.

Canard

^I've been trying to follow the sentence but why does the third one get a capital letter if its meant to be bully? :pac:

Monty Burnz

Patchy~ wrote: »

^I've been trying to follow the sentence but why does the third one get a capital letter if its meant to be bully? :pac:

Bully bully bully Bully bully Bully bully bully.

HTH.

Ficheall

Patchy~ wrote: »

^I've been trying to follow the sentence but why does the third one get a capital letter if its meant to be bully? :pac:

I think I was reading it the same way as you: Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, oui? Technically makes sense. However, it would appear that in the "original", it's not the tautological buffaloing of the Buffalo buffalo victims, but is, instead, illustrative of the vicious cycle of Buffalo buffalo buffaloing Buffalo buffalo:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

danniemcq

murphm45 wrote: »

There were millions of these but one of the best had to be my business studies teacher who told us that a the first two numbers of a barcode told you where it came from (40 apparently means it was made in Ireland or he UK).

There is some truth to that http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/barcodes.asp

The code is more of a guide than a fact

face1990

It means 'Buffalo buffalo, which Buffalo buffalo buffalo, themselves buffalo Buffalo buffalo'.

Another one of those sentences is 'John while Peter had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher'.
With punctuation it's 'John, while Peter had had 'had', had had 'had had'; 'had had' had had a better effect on the teacher'.

kylith

Patchy~ wrote: »

^I've been trying to follow the sentence but why does the third one get a capital letter if its meant to be bully? :pac:

ah, you're right. It should be

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.

Better?

onlyrocknroll

kylith wrote: »

ah, you're right. It should be

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.

Better?

You left out a buffalo.

Buffalo (a) buffalo (n) buffalo (v) Buffalo (A) buffalo (n) Buffalo (a) buffalo (n) buffalo (v).

a- adjective
n- noun
v- verb

onlyrocknroll

Ficheall wrote: »

I think I was reading it the same way as you: Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo, oui? Technically makes sense. However, it would appear that in the "original", it's not the tautological buffaloing of the Buffalo buffalo victims, but is, instead, illustrative of the vicious cycle of Buffalo buffalo buffaloing Buffalo buffalo:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Why can't the buffalo from Buffalo just learn to live in harmony.

Eathrin

Patchy~ wrote: »

^I've been trying to follow the sentence but why does the third one get a capital letter if its meant to be bully? :pac:

It's not, It's the place name, think about it...

onlyrocknroll

Replace buffalo(v) with bully
buffalo(n) with bison
and leave Buffalo(a) as it is.

Buffalo bison bully Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully.

kylith

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

You left out a buffalo.

Buffalo (a) buffalo (n) buffalo (v) Buffalo (A) buffalo (n) Buffalo (a) buffalo (n) buffalo (v).

a- adjective
n- noun
v- verb

No I didn't
Buffalo bison bully bison Buffalo bison bully.

What you're saying is
Buffalo bison bully Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully. Personally I think the second Buffalo is unnecessary as it gives the impression that Buffalo bison bully themselves.

onlyrocknroll

kylith wrote: »

No I didn't
Buffalo bison bully bison Buffalo bison bully.

What you're saying is
Buffalo bison bully Buffalo bison Buffalo bison bully. Personally I think the second Buffalo is unnecessary as it gives the impression that Buffalo bison bully themselves.

It doesn't mean they bully themselves, it means that they bully other bison from Buffalo. As Ficheall said it describes a vicious cycle of bullying among the bison of Buffalo.

kylith

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

It doesn't mean they bully themselves, it means that they bully other bison from Buffalo. As Ficheall said it describes a vicious cycle of bullying among the bison of Buffalo.

Well, I guess that either is correct then.

AckwelFoley

A geography teacher in secondary school insisted that the world was 3,000 years old. I suggested that his margin of error was out by a few billion years roughly 4.5 billion. He wasn't too impressed when I explained The theory of evolution to him either.

I wouldn't mind if this guy himself was a fossil, he wasn't he was no more than 30 at the time. He was also riding half the young lads in the class..but that's a different debate

Capt'n Midnight

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Was this table quiz in a nursery school or something?

Question 2: What colour is the sky? ...

that's a tough one

pickarooney

Andy Carroll wrote: »

I still here people saying that.

I can't even begin to work out if it's true or not. How do you go about working out how many people have ever died? The total population went from 1.5 billion to 7 billion in the last 100 years or so and was obviously much smaller in the preceding centuries. It would take an awful long time for 7 billion people to have died.

retalivity

katzenjammer wrote: »

That the Sugarloaf in the Wicklow Mtns was an extinct volcano... Only found out in college that it's not!

I was also taught that Errigal in Donegal is an extinct volcano, and the red bits around the top that you can see some days was lava.

Re: the 'More people alive today than at any time in history'

It is extremely difficult to quantify this statement.
There are 6billion+ people in the world. Picking an arbitrary date of 1900, it could be said that everone alive then, or before then is now dead. How do you get the numbers for that total? How many people have died between 1900-2012 to add to the list? People had lot shorter lifespans, so you would go through generations of people much faster the further back you go. And how far back do you go?

Its one of those sweeping general estimations that has plenty of room for error

Capt'n Midnight

pickarooney wrote: »

I can't even begin to work out if it's true or not. How do you go about working out how many people have ever died? The total population went from 1.5 billion to 7 billion in the last 100 years or so and was obviously much smaller in the preceding centuries. It would take an awful long time for 7 billion people to have died.

It really just depends on when you start the clock.

Genetics suggests that 70,000 years ago there were perhaps as few as 15,000

Take a generation as 17.5 years and that's 4,000 generations. To get the same number as alive today you'd only need an average population of 175,000 humans across that time. And we know the population was bigger than that

A Primal Nut

Environmentalists tell us that having a bath instead of a shower uses less water. I've tested this a couple of times by leaving the bath plugged during a 5 or 10-minute shower and its not true. Not even close.

readyletsgo

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Environmentalists tell us that having a bath instead of a shower uses less water. I've tested this a couple of times by leaving the bath plugged during a 5 or 10-minute shower and its not true. Not even close.

I think you have that the wrong way around, no one has ever said that.

Baths always use more water than a shower, FACT!

Unless your having a shower for 3 hours each day or having a bath in a small bucket.

micropig

readyletsgo wrote: »

I think you have that the wrong way around, no one has ever said that.

Baths always use more water than a shower, FACT!

Unless your having a shower for 3 hours each day.

And the power needed to heat the water is much less for a shower than a bath

Pherekydes

micropig wrote: »

And the power needed to heat the water is much less for a shower than a bath

Well, obviously.

micropig

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, obviously.

To most yes, but not to these type of Environmentalists:D

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Environmentalists tell us that having a bath instead of a shower uses less water. I've tested this a couple of times by leaving the bath plugged during a 5 or 10-minute shower and its not true. Not even close.

Kolido

pickarooney wrote: »

I can't even begin to work out if it's true or not. How do you go about working out how many people have ever died? The total population went from 1.5 billion to 7 billion in the last 100 years or so and was obviously much smaller in the preceding centuries. It would take an awful long time for 7 billion people to have died.

I heard that the total number of people to ever live is ~107billion.

This was on a radio station and prehaps a bit of research behind it but I'm not saying its fact but maybe a good reference.

Turtwig

Ok time to put this population myth to bed.