Count the "F's"

Well maybe this has been done before, and I know it's a stupid email, but count how many "F's" are in the following statement and post your answer.

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...

6

Yep, definitely 6...

Yeah, I've seen this one, its an eye opening little test. However, after giving another go, I couldn't find a single "F's" in there. So my answer is 0.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 23-April-2006 08:22 AM

6, regis.

20, counting the ones that are part of the letter "E"

quote:

---

Well maybe this has been done before....

---

Lots of times. Yet, no matter how many times I see it, I still miss the fs in the word of.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Outstanding reply, Modulous: you answered the question that was asked, not the question Rat thought he asked. Well done.

I never put the word single in front of "F", modulus added that in.
It could be taken either way.

Honesty is a treasure.
I missed them too.

The word single has NOTHING to do with it.Modulos points out that there is no character string "F's" anywhere in there. You meant to ask "How many "F"'s are there? "

Ok, I really want to know what the difference is between "F's" and "F"'sWhat does character string have to do with it? We are not programing.What is amazing to me is how everyone breaks everything down around here to mean something different. I guess if we discussed it enough, we wouldn't even exist.

"F's" = F's"F"'s = FAssuming that what is in quotes is what is being looked for.

Depends on what you mean by "exist"...If I had posted my first count, I would have gotten it wrong. But I recognized the text was one of those illustrations of perceptual pitfalls, so I went letter by letter, using a pencil as a pointer on my monitor, and came up with the correct count. By that time, others had posted the correct count, so I didn't bother.Then Modulous posted his inspired reply. The point is that the quote marks are supposed to surround an exact replica of what we look for; by that criterion, there were none (no "F's") in the passage.So it amused me that Modulous had taken an exercise that demonstrates we don't always accurately process what we see and used it to demonstrate that we don't always say what we mean. So the exercise did double duty.I didn't mean to be contentious, merely to salute Mod's sharp eye.

Ok then I agree.I am thinking of starting another topic where we can discuss human logic. Schraf and a few others say we as humans are not naturally logical. I say we are, but it is our ability to read directions, and or print them.