Recent content by govich

just to add to this..cos i havent been here for ages.. the speaking exam is like a conversation basically. the interviewer asks you a fairly simple question to start with and then gets more and more complex to test you. i ended up having a semi-formal convo about my trip to japan and how...

hehe if by slightly retarded you mean curved then ok :p ps measuring while travelling at 0.9c doesn't count either :D

rearranging the numbers doesn't count :p draw me a triangle with sides 1,2,3 and i'll get a medal for ya in the morning. maan i called mike and he agreed with me. you so can't win :D

hehe fair enough. i suppose it depends on how you look at it. i don't consider 0 degrees to be an angle. oh well, i can't be convinced at the moment, and i'm not gonna try to argue any more..i've tried ringing teachers classmates advice line etc. everyone agrees. general consensus is to fudge ;)

OK i just called the advice line and worked through the question. basically you end up with (b-c)^2 < a^2. the best explanation the man had was that you could then deduce that it's either less than or equal to simply because it's less than. but then if you have 3^2 > 2^2, could you just as...

i would have thought a straight line is the one thing a triangle wouldn't be? a straight line is the shortest distance between two points right. and a triangle is a three sided polygon with (funnily enough) three angles. i'm about to ring up the advice line.

just a quick question guys why is the triangle inequality a + b >= c? why equal to? i was doing the 2001 hsc paper again this morning and Q8a part ii says a,b and c are three sides of a triangle. surely if equality holds then they are three sides (?) of a straight line? and you no longer...

innocent until proven guilty? ok i can't be bothered arguing anymore, it's too late and i'm too tired. agree to disagree. just try and look at the situation from both sides, you're only looking at it from one at the moment.

nice first post. i bet you feel really intelligent after having typed all that.

no it means that noone can prove they did it. so everyone should stop giving them crap on the basis that they did!

ok so if it's likely then it must have happened? read the last sentence you just wrote again.

it gets old for bulldogs supporters because after just about every win all anyone has to say is 'bloody rapists'. the people who were trying to prosecute them don't have enough evidence to do so. we know the media like to hype things up because that's how they work. what happened to 'it was a...

:rolleyes: nothing more to add.

supporters of other teams that hate the bulldogs always have to have something to fall back on when the dogs win :rolleyes: the dogs win the premiership and people start going on about how they are rapists .. really guys it's getting old? i suppose someone's gonna have a go at big willie...

alright and everybody here is an expert on exactly what happened huh? i love it how every doggies thread degenerates into whether they are rapists or not. tossers. anyway, close game but i believe the dogs are premiers. :D:D:D