In response to the questions asked on Mr. Farrar’s post about DAFT’s PEA.
It would be nice if you guys commented on here, rather than there!
“What would stop the accumulated quantity of STD interfering with and corrupting the PENIS thus preventing it from a proper performance in accordance with the PEA?”
PENIS would be made up of a diverse range of members. Political scientists such as Margaret Clark, states-people like Judy Bailey, comedians like Jerome Chandrahasen, and political commentators like Russell Brown would fill the ranks. Thus making it hard for any two people in PENIS to agree on how to distribute said STD. It is a complete likelihood that people would stop donating to the STD fund after the first election under PEA anyway.
“Can the STD PENIS be cured by PEA?”
D4J, me thinks you best consult a doctor.
“I would contend that the macroscopic size of the breakfast would collapse this.”
Ahhhh sorry your wrong, as is GNZ and Rich Prick. The clarkinchi code has nothing to do with the formula used by penis to distribute STD, neither does Parekura or pi. You’re all working off the assumption (as Mr. Edgeler pointed out before) that this is the whole equation, it is not. It is only the first page. Please send your credit card details to our email and a full copy of the equation will be sent out to you.
“What happens when a Variable Algebraic Giant Indicative Normalizable Axis is put into the mix with the PENIS?”
We would get all sorts of weird legislation coming out of parliament. Hopefully this will not happen and there is a Criteria ON Differential Ornithoptic Mathematics clause in PEA.