Does anyone here believe in the 77 theory?

[garric]

The theory essentially states that the USA has a great world leader every 77 years. Starting at Washington, we get Lincoln, FDR, and now George Bush. So, does anyone trully believe in it?

I wrote a Wiki article on this topic but it was promptly deleted a few minutes later against my knowledge. I was going to link to it here but it's now long gone and deleted. I guess Wiki is run by Bush haters.

 

[MjM]

It seemed beleivable when we got Lincoln FDR, and Washington. But I'm afraid Bush killed that theory.

 

[garric]

It seemed beleivable when we got Lincoln FDR, and Washington. But I'm afraid Bush killed that theory.

Do I sense a bit of bias here?

 

[snarko]

No. Any such theory must sooner or later be wrong. Even if it would take a million years it would still eventually be wrong. And that isn't even taking into account that 'great world leader' is an opinion and people will unavoidably disagree on it.

 

[Perfection]

No, it's coincidence, nothing more.

 

[MjM]

I believe it is false because Bush is a horrible world leader.

 

[garric]

I believe it is false because Bush is a horrible world leader.

You are obviously ignorant.

Even though you may not agree with all of his ideals, you must accept the fact that he is a key part of world affairs. He changed the world moreso than most of the presidents.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I believe it is false because it has no reason for the correlation, and that mathematical coincidences like these are extremely commonplace even under completely random circumstances.

No need to say that Bush is a pinhead to dismiss this as bunk.

 

[Cilpot]

Of course Wiki deleted the article. Stuff like this has nothing to do in an encyclopedia.. Or wikipedia

 

[MjM]

You are obviously ignorant.

Even though you may not agree with all of his ideals, you must accept the fact that he is a key part of world affairs. He changed the world moreso than most of the presidents.

True he changed the world, but he didnt make it a better place, he made it a badder place. And I dont agree with any of his ideals.

 

[garric]

Of course Wiki deleted the article. Stuff like this has nothing to do in an encyclopedia.. Or wikipedia

It is a theory none-the-less. Much like the evolution theory, or Occam's Razor. There's no reason it should be removed.

 

[garric]

True he changed the world, but he didnt make it a better place, he made it a badder place. And I dont agree with any of his ideals.

Please, just stay out of my thread. You are obviously too young for this conversation.

 

[Perfection]

Please, please, let's not turn this into a Bush-bashing event, garric needs to learn to disregard such coincidences. Rational thought is important in a young lad's development.

 

[MjM]

Please, just stay out of my thread. You are obviously too young for this conversation.

Dont throw a tenter-tantrum now just because I dont agree with you. For starters, why do you like Bush so much?

 

[garric]

Dont throw a tenter-tantrum now just because I dont agree with you. For starters, why do you liek Bush so much?

I guess you didn't take the hint. I didn't say I "liek" Bush. I was just saying it is a theory. And this has nothing to do with whether you like Bush or not - so take it out of this thread.

 

[garric]

Please, please, let's not turn this into a Bush-bashing event, garric needs to learn to disregard such coincidences. Rational thought is important in a young lad's development.

I didn't just invent this theory - it is very well known throughout the country. Many people believe it. And it's not just a random mathematical occurance that you're trying to spin it to be.

 

[Perfection]

It is a theory none-the-less. Much like the evolution theory, or Occam's Razor. There's no reason it should be removed.

Occam's Razor isn't a theory.

Also as a theory it's a very crappy one. It has no mechanism (quite unlike evoltuinary theory), it has not been rigorously tested (quite unlike evolutionary theory). It doesn't have a legacy of making many good predictions (unlike evolutionary theory)

Also, wikipedia is about notable things. This crackpot thoery isn't notable.

 

[MjM]

I guess you didn't take the hint. I didn't say I "liek" Bush. I was just saying it is a theory. And this has nothing to do with whether you like Bush or not - so take it out of this thread.

First of all we aren't all perfect like Bush, I make typoes occasionally. And your theory says that the USA has a great world leader every 77 years and I said I thought it too be false because Bush is in fact; not a great world leader, which makes the theory untrue.

 

[garric]

Occam's Razor isn't a theory.

Also as a theory it's a very crappy one. It has no mechanism (quite unlike evoltuinary theory), it has not been rigorously tested (quite unlike evolutionary theory). It doesn't have a legacy of making many good predictions (unlike evolutionary theory)

Also, wikipedia is about notable things. This crackpot thoery isn't notable.

The theory is simple - that doesn't disprove it. It has a mechanism (Every 77 years.) and has been proven (Lincoln, FDR, Washington, and Bush have all been monumental great leaders of USA, moreso than the other presidents.).

And it's not a crackpot theory. I can't believe this place is full of such ignorance.

 

[Perfection]

I didn't just invent this theory - it is very well known throughout the country.

I haven't heard of it. Googling came up with nothing. I'm not seeing the notability

Many people believe it.

Doesn't make 'em right

And it's not just a random mathematical occurance that you're trying to spin it to be.

Give me one good reason to think it is not.