Re: try this (OT)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thats freaking weird. After I read that it had six I went back and closely examined it and still didn't see the OFs.

[/ QUOTE ]

me too. i needed the last bit of info. i'm ususally good at these, but this one got me. then i ran it by lorinda (math & logic geek) and she got 3 as well. that's why i posted it.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/k/dontknow.gif

Re: try this (OT)
 

[ QUOTE ]
i counted all six... but then again i remember this little exercise from many years back. what do i win?

[/ QUOTE ]


the warm feeling that your long-term memory is still intact. enjoy it while it lasts.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/h0/dazdrool.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/h0/dazdrool.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/h0/dazdrool.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/h0/dazdrool.gif

Re: try this (OT)
 

This test is flawed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I got 6 the first time, having never seen it before, and I'm dumb as a post.

Re: try this (OT)
 

I only found 3. It's interesting how our brains filter out "unimportant data." Taking articles out of sentences (i.e. "the" and "a") makes the sentence just as understandable. I suppose that's why some languages don't have these types of words. Then again, other languages have long-ass words to compensate.

Re: try this (OT)
 

I counted 5...missed the OF in the last line. I guess I'm almost a genius.

But I also have difficulty reading off a computer screen so I tend to read very slowly and deliberately.

The Doc

Re: try this (OT)
 

wow. I got three...twice. I guess I am a dumba**.

Re: try this (OT)
 

[ QUOTE ]
wow. I got three...twice. I guess I am a dumba**.

[/ QUOTE ]

2x3=6=genius ?

Re: try this (OT)
 

Four...I only sorta suck.

Re: try this (OT)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I counted 5...missed the OF in the last line. I guess I'm almost a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

I counted the exact same 5, twice in a row. I finally noticed the last OF going letter for letter.

Re: try this (OT)
 

I have seen this before so I got it right.

can I be a genius?