Yes!
Yes!
Keep your friends close, keep your drinks closer...
No poll?
I just think he is one sided and is always pushing his sides Ideology or Agenda.
Sort of like how he starts a thread about Trump and disinfectant.
He fails to tell us about the Cuomos using Clorox Baths and how I am sure many Democrats are trying them as well.
It is clear MWP, Redietz, LMR and others want Trump out of office and to be in prison.
I don't really care who is in office because it doesn't matter except for Entertainment Purposes.
Lefties just want to complain and have others listen to them.
In their mind, its cool to protest if your a Faggot or Black.
If you are White and bring guns its not cool to protest or gridlock traffic.
Tasha, can you do a poll on this? You’re the poll person. This is a great topic for a poll.
I can think of two votes MWV might get, but I think even these two liberals might have to vote yes on this question.
You guys finally off your "rockers"? What happened? Hehehe.
Who is stupider, LMR (Bill Dung) or MWP?
My vote says MWP is STUPID x 29 = stoooooooooooopppppppppiiiddddddd!!!!
LMR is STUPID x 31 = stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppiidddddd eerrrrrrrr!!!!
DOJ needs to introduce ANTIFA to RICO
Who's smarter? Crimm, or Trump? I think it's a draw. But, what do I know.
Ha, I'mSTUPID x 31 = stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppiidddddd eerrrrrrrr!!!!
Say, if the next dumbest person is smarter than the dumbest, then can someone dumber than the dumbest person be smart? Ie, just how dumb do you have to be to be smart?
Meh, as the illustrious MrV used to say, before he lost his luster.
Well, it really was a good question about who is smarter. I mean, will, nay, can, Crimm forgo his oversized ego, long enough, to let Trump continue to have the "limelight"? Ha, limelight. Say, next, Trump will be telling everyone to eat lime while they "shine" themselves with his very own limelight. Crimm's fixation with the word, shine.
Anyway, again, the real world marches on.
Consider the numerological and/or alphametic correspondence of letters to numbers with respect to their positions from the start and end of the alphabet. A = 1, b = 2, etc, to z = 1. Then, the word, wizard, reduces to the palindromic number sequence of w(4) i(9) z(1) a(1) r(9) d(4). Well, I guess, I should have put the letters in the brackets, but, this is good enough for now. The sum of the digits of 491194 is 28 = 3*3*3 + 1, which is one off the divine sum, 27 = 3*3*3. Now a real wizard reflects to show its "two" faces through the superposed "one", here with the alpha-a on the omega-z as in 49194. Ha, "I am the alpha and the omega!" The sum of digits of 49194 is the Godly, 27 = 3*3*3. The corresponding palindromic or reflected number, with the alpha-a on the omega-z, is 49194 = 2(3*3*3 X 911). The "two" faces of a real God versus the "two" of a fake one. The "one", versus the one. Note how the good, 3*3*3 balances out the bad, 911. After all, a wizard isn't , per se, any God, or Devil, but, instead a mix of the two.
What are the "two" faces of a fake God, or the Devil, the one(s) without with the alpha-a on the omega-z? Well, 49194 may be written out as 911(3*3*3)(11- 9) ---> 911_333_119. The straightforward version of "two" faces. But, the Devil, well, is a bit more complicated. Look, 491194 = [(-1) - 19][(1 / 10) - 3*3*3][(1 + 1) + 911] ---> 11911_333_11911. And, Hell followed. Well, at least the bad form of a wizard.
The good wizard, with a sum of digits at 27 = 3*3*3 = (6 / 2)*9 = [6 / (1 + 1)]*9;
the bad wizard, with a sum of digits at 28 = 2*14 = 2*2*7 = 2*(1 + 1)*7."
Last edited by LMR; 04-25-2020 at 06:50 AM.
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t_1^2} f(t_0,t_1) =
( \delta+2t_0+2t_1)^{\alpha( w-t_0+t_1 )-1} \cdot \bigl(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t_1^2}\alpha(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) +\\
\alpha'(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot 2 \cdot \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1)+
\alpha'(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \frac{2}{\delta+2t_0+2t_1} +\\
2 \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1} \alpha( w-t_0+t_1 ) \bigr) +
( \delta+2t_0+2t_1)^{\alpha( w-t_0+t_1 )-2}\cdot\\
\bigl( \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1} \alpha(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) + (\alpha (w-t_0+t_1) -2) \bigr) \cdot \\
\bigl( \alpha'(w -t_0+t_1) \cdot ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) +
2\alpha( w-t_0+t_1)\bigr) = \\
( \delta+2t_0+2t_1)^{\alpha( w-t_0+t_1 )-1} \cdot \Bigl(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t_1^2}\alpha(w -t_0+t_1) \cdot ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) +\\
2 \cdot \alpha'(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot \bigl( 2 + \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \bigr) \Bigr) +
( \delta+2t_0+2t_1)^{\alpha( w-t_0+t_1)-2} \cdot \Bigl( \\
\alpha '(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot
(\delta + 2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \log (\delta + 2t_0+2t_1) +
\bigl(\alpha (w-t_0+t_1) -2) \bigr) \cdot
\bigl( \\
\alpha'(w-t_0+t_1) \cdot ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) \cdot \log ( \delta+2t_0+2t_1) +2\alpha( w-t_0+t_1)\bigr) \Bigr) < 0
\end{align*}
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)