First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #2271?
[Deleted user]: [deleted question]

Liumas: I did 3 times.
the manatee: No.
WLhokies: I dunno... No?
frumpish: 1+1=2
batatas: ...
satzle: 5... I mean 3.
vandemonium: Yes.
Polgara: no
mbrna: A opposed to the inaccuracies of fate?
DrChek: No.
Cornbread46: 42
SubtlyArtistic: not really.
petegrey: only if the numbers support it
TrimChris: Only to a certain standard deviation.
myadestes: Nein.
atrium: No.
DHEK: Nope.
sotc77: nope
ZiggyZambo: of course not
aleo09: what
MightyMike: Don't approve of it, so my answer would have to be "no".
PsyJam: No
e.c.r.: yes
bigbadsteve: nope
Cut & Space: No
cad614: I don't know. What's my number?
interhawk: nope
Roja: I am a beta, so yes!
brainrob: Nope
Nekura: All Signs Point To "No"
nexttothemoon: No.
vampywife: some of it seems pretty cool, but i think it's best not to go by that alone
joebelanger: Nope.
justinmatters: no
Gizensha: No, but it can be interesting coming up with rp/fiction character names based on a sort of reversed numerology using standardised descriptions available on the net.
kinetic: no, Im not big on alot of ologys
Stephen Glenn: What does the Bible say on the matter?
chockle: Oh yes. That's why all of us numerologists are so wealthy... because it really works well!
jellospike: Good one.
Loquutus: Sure not.
ZombyDawg: no
locusshifter: no
Twkw: Yes
puffinge: not really but it can be fun anyway
chillrunr: no
Belash: yes, counting is accurate
loiosh13: No
POvidiusNaso: Yes. If you lose 5 pounds, then 5 more, then 3, then 7, then 8, then 0, then 0, and finally 8, you truly will become boobless.
xlorp: There's safety in numbers, right?
mrbeankc: *shrug*
Longbow: nope
skrutsch: no
Legend Dan: Yes.
dakarp: Accurate, perhaps, but meaningless.
sourwyrm: huh?
GuyHill: no
Hubajube: No
CharlieWonka: Nope
scriptorum: http://www.melankolia.net/gameblog/
Great Dane: No
TMJJS: no
hpox: Yes.
arkibet: no, but I managed to teach a group of sixteen year old girls algebra by pretending it was "Arithmancy" on a Harry Potter RPG
Ludocrazy: No
Snappatoon: So long as 2+2=5
msbtch2u: 873492, but only on tuesdays.
Darkehorse: no
shotokanguy: no, with two letters
2amp: no
heli: n
Sceadeau: hahahahhahahahah
Lord_Prussian: Yes
ValJor: Cranky, you're so funny!
snoozefest: n
djlg: Its accurate. Accurate crap.
skelebone: No, numerology said that my pizza would arrive at 6:15, and it turns out I didn't even order any.
Kubilai: I believe in the limited accuracy of numerical solutions.
ikeafetishist: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. that's like believing in santa claus.
Nomadik: No
AWildEep: No
gnomehome: Question 2271 - this cannot be a coincidence !
toulouse: no
UhhhClem: Sure. It's not like there's a lot of rounding error in numerology. Even when the results are wrong, they're accurate.
rawk: no
MisterCranky: 42!
AlorielLelyn: I find that it can be accurate occasionally. However, to the vast numbers of people, it doesn't really quite work out that way. So effectively, my answer is 42 :P
Spielfreak: yes, er... +/- 3%
CDRodeffer: No, it's all crap.
Tim Synge: I get confused - is that different from the numeracy of accurology?
jttm: Umm... to an extent
Blackwind: nah
CortexBomb: No, but I do believe in the tastiness of 4 egg omelettes
chaddyboy_2000: I have no idea.