Strong and weak FA

Weak and strong means of PRS

What people fail to realize in the RPS (rock, paper, scissors) confligation the the Floating Anvil FA. Manifold Vectorization Quantumization Theory MVQT conclusively documents that with sufficient and necessessary yet non obligatory bilateral subderivative disontinuous equivilization that the net collective mean of the sum of the integral subaverages is consistent with the standard derivative of the manifold integrity coefficient.There have been people at this site that have censored me and don't want this fact known. They have been busting my post to keep me quiet, but I won't be until every american know that the promethian symmetrical normaloization of the integral of this three dimential continum fails to take into consideration the insufficient means of the second order polymorphic characterization of the hermitain distribution. I will not be silenced on this matter. DS and DD' and DL and all the other D's have been pressuring me to be on the 86 with this QT. i will speak out until i have incontrovertible proven P and not G that the quantum flux infusion through polarization is a sub set of the diametrically opposing null lemma of rotational determinism.

can that be quantified via non-destructive, non-dispersive, infered molecular absorption?

Amen!

you ropehead.

..what people fail to realize in the RPS (rock, paper, scissors) confligation the the Floating Anvil FA. Manifold Vectorization Quantumization Theory MVQT conclusively documents that with sufficient and necessessary yet non obligatory bilateral subderivative disontinuous equivilization that the net collective mean of the sum of the integral subaverages is consistent with the standard derivative of the manifold integrity coefficient.

If anyone accuses me of plagiarism I will deny it.

And he rubbed your nose in it with another post. See my explanation below.

The Micheal Jackson of sexual identity surgery and psychotherapy apparently!

With appologies to Micheal Jackson who at least can write songs!

Dear Clarke,

I didn't seem to understand to much of this post at all. I think you may be speaking over everyone head here. You have to remember lots of people haven't had the extensive background in mathematics that you have.

Isn't that why we all find ourselves listening with rapt attention?

He even posted again to rub everyone's nose in it. He did so by taking part of his original text and dragging it over repeting it and saying that he could not be called a plaggerist for doing so. But my actual post does mention the interesting utility, in the incorrect Strong Version of the Floating Advantage, that points to how a binomial distribution can be used in the classic P/not P problem. That I put on the Yahoo CCC.

Will someone please play Clarke the "Jeopardy" theme.

Picking up on a clue most missed? Whether even this was Puiu or not it only serves the same purpose as the Puiu posts and Puiu is an obvious plaggerer and disrupter.

And he rubbed your nose in it with another post.

Rubbed my nose in WHAT?? You are truly delusional.

ETF

At the risk of being contradicted by a postbuster who knows more than me, I'd say that the post by "Clark Rant" was not by Puiu. My reasoning is (a) Puiu engages in exactly the same mathematical verbiage that masquerades as deep thought, and (b) Puiu lacks the necessary sense of humor to be self-deprecating. Hence, Puiu would find it impossible to satirize any of his traits, even if such a trait is also shared by other posters.

..That's my two cents -- but that's also what I'd wager I'm right and no more.

When you make a post without giving source information and part of it was snagged from another post, and you state that you cannot be accussed of plaggerism for making the second post there is only one way to do that: if you made the original post too.

If this escapes you, you may be from Arkinsas and related to Bill, in the way Danny Devito's character was developed in the film, Twins.