read and name dropping.
>
>If I've ever done that, then someone should have called me on
>it at the time, just like I called you on it when you argued
>that the expression equals 2, based on rules that clearly
>imply that it equals 288.

But actually, no, the answer is clearly 2, which is what
is sort of weird about this interaction.

You've tried to add ambiguity to a situation that is
not ambiguous.

The answer is 2.

You are trying to sophisticate the problem to compensate
for the fact that you are wrong.

>You can keep trying to deflect
>that, but it doesn't change the fact that you were completely,
>totally, unambiguously wrong. As I've said before, there's a
>valid, logical interpretation for either number, but somehow
>you managed to find a wrong answer to a question that
>shouldn't have had a wrong answer.

Except that there is one answer, and that is 2.

You didn't come up with that.

>You're wrong. Don't change the subject.

Oh, I'm not changing the subject at all.

You like to name drop and get things wrong.

Just like you did in this post.

You want to tough talk about QED, and yet you can't
read a basic fraction.

I'm willing to let this die now, because you're obviously
mad, and that's cool, happens to me all the time.















































































































































































But it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.



----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "