----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<af76858c-c81d-4af1-8bc1-f67ddf56a46an@googlegroups.com> 15ab2957
@REPLY: _Lv6.17767@fx12.iad>
b1b1b4eb
@REPLYADDR JayPique <mwskaneateles@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 JayPique
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
<5a14d434-f12e-4c32-9adb-cfe9885aa841n@googlegroups.com> _Lv6.17767@fx12.iad>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<af76858c-c81d-4af1-8bc1-f67ddf56a46an@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-4, Puckdropper wrote:
> JayPique <
mwskan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:5a14d434-f12e-4c32-9adb-
>
cfe988...@googlegroups.com:
> > Is a square square still square even if it`s not a Woodpeckers?
> >
> So you`ve got square^square and you`re asking if it`s equal to square?
>
> No, unless you call the square root symbol a woodpecker--I guess you can
> kinda see a beak if you look at the right angle...
>
> So yes,
> square=woodpecker(square^square)
>
> So in answer to your question, I have proven empirically that a square
> square isn`t a square unless a woodpecker is involved.
>
> Puckdropper, allegedly
Ed Bennett and Steve Strickland would disagree.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441