/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4600493
How about you post some math instead of image macros of a person?

>>4600335
I think it's called "trolling".

>>4600301

What a surprise, the GET happened in a religion troll thread.
/sarcasm

>>4490555
Trollbaiting? I honestly believe Harriet when she says she studies psychology. And you should do the same.
/sarcasm

>>4490487
>>4490492
Oh and before you pretend not having seen it, here's the link: >>4490393

>>4490487
Did you see the psychology thread? I want to see you posting qualified statements there. lol

A psychology question!
Why isn't Harrient here to competently answer it?
/sarcasm

>>4490448
What more is there to say about Harriet?

>>4490444
No, I'm not. There's not even a point to discuss ITT.

>>4490437
As if it couldn't get any worse...

>>4490436
I am rightfully upset of this Harriet person shitting up /sci/.

>>4490435
I play the science card in a science thread. Is this one a science thread? Definitely not.

>>4490432
inb4 *its

>>4490429
/b/ level quality at it's best. Please leave /sci/ forever.

>>4490424
I fucknig knew it right after I hit submit. Playing the grammar nazi is the lowest form of "trolling" one can think of. You can't address my true point, so you resort to weak shitposting. You're pathetic.

>>4490419
All these statements apply to your person.

>>4490417
That's exactly what you said. Your "trolling" becomes weaker and weaker with every post. Just fuck off, if you're even to stupid to maintain a "troll" attitude.

>>4490416
Oh no, Captain Assburger has entered the thread. Why the fuck do you post such garbage in an off-topic thread for any other purpose than shitposting itself?

>>4490410
I can't believe you are this dumb for real. You must be playing and trolling right now. Just because I set up a name five minutes ago you arrogantly assume to know all my posts in the past?

>>4490404
So what? That's true, but not related to what I posted. Learn to read and educate yourself. I pointed out the severe mental impairment of OP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication

>>4490402
You don't even know which posts are mine. If you didn't shit up /sci/, there would be a lot of civilized on-topic threads.

>>4490395
Are you too dumb to understand an implication? It's a simple set inclusion. If he's under the age of 8, he transitively is under the age of 18 as well. Nothing else was said. Go be anti-intellectual somewhere else.

This is not a science question, you fucking retard. Anyway no one would marry a stripper and strippers definitely don't make 500k.