Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 0:22:58 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
 

bertietaylor wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:05:10 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
>

David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

On 7/9/24 14:58, Jim Pennino wrote:

David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

On 7/3/24 20:38, bertietaylor wrote:

The nonsense that is e=mcc cannot be glorified with the exponential
operator and an extra letter.
Arindam's contraction to e=mcc shows his disdain.

>
Arindam has used this same disdainful gesture on his own
formula that he offers as a superior alternative to E=mcc

>
This is Arindam.

>
It isn't always necessary to say so.

>
True, it is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention, but most people
don't pay any attention to your posts, Aridam.

>
Robotic penisnonos and brain-dead thumper-chanters have to be like that.

>
Why are you obsessed with penises, Arindam?

 
Now what will robotswine penisnonos know about natural creativity?
Genuine talent? Natural compassion? Divine grace? They can but bark, lie
and steal