ei+ei+0?

[Tony]

Angela Brett wrote:
> ei+ei+0 might be irrational,

Pardon my ignorance, but where does ei+ei+0 come from? I know what it means, I just don't remember seeing it before. It's a good job it's not in caps or it might have to stand for "Explain It + Expand It + Observe"

PS.
It means that this is one of the few places on the web where "SHOUTING*" is acceptable, but it carries a high price ;-)

IF YOU PUT A WORD IN CAPS YOU MUST ACRONYMISE IT

In Future You Obey Us! Please Undertake To Acronymise Words (Of Recent Design) Into Novel/Comedic Acronyms. Please Say You'll Observe Uniformity. Most Users Subscribe To Agreement:- Capitals Required? Okay, Now You Must Instantly Spell-out Expansion In Text.

SHOUTING
Screaming Horrible Obscenity's Usually Threatening - It's Not Good!

[Angela Brett]

ei+ei+0 is the number of that rule in the acronymists' charter. The number and its rule are both irrational and imaginary, but it seems people haven't noticed that and have followed the rule anyway.

Nice expansions. :^D

[Tony]

>>> On 23 September 2001 09:11:30 UTC, Angela Brett wrote:

Nice expansions. :^D

We need an acronym of praise for people who create a 'nice expansion' of a new acronym - without being rude, or creating new words with or without purposeful mispellings - just basically playing about with real words, which is how all this started. So how about:-

NICE  EXPANSION
Novelty Is Cleverly Encapsulated - Eschewing X-rated Puns And Non-Standard Idioms Or Neologisms

[Jeff Anonymous]

When I cited Edwin for saying WTC, I was referencing rule (pi)*3i of the Acronymists Charter, which clearly states that all capitalisations should be acronymised.  Of course, this too is irrational and semificticious, but the point still stands that I am braced to do EDWIN HERMANN(3).

[Angela Brett]

Oh, I thought that rule pi*3i (which is completely imaginary, no semi- about it!) had been erased in favour of ei+ei+0. I guess I wasn't paying attention at the last conference. Rule pi*3i is even more irrational than ei+ei+0 since it means we can't even refer to our own previous creations without redoing them, which makes me wonder if perhaps ei+ei+0 should be renamed to a nice untranscendental (yet still irrational) number like iphi. It all seems a bit iffy though.


>>> On 24 September 2001 03:24:40 UTC, Jeff Anonymous wrote:

When I cited Edwin for saying WTC, I was referencing rule (pi)*3i of the Acronymists Charter, which clearly states that all capitalisations should be acronymised.

[Tony]

>>> On 24 September 2001 05:36:48 UTC, Angela Brett wrote:

Oh, I thought that rule pi*3i (which is completely imaginary, no semi- about it!) had been erased in favour of ei+ei+0. I guess I wasn't paying attention at the last conference. Rule pi*3i is even more irrational than ei+ei+0 since it means we can't even refer to our own previous creations without redoing them, which makes me wonder if perhaps ei+ei+0 should be renamed to a nice untranscendental (yet still irrational) number like iphi. It all seems a bit iffy though.

Surely all these petty rules are dependent on one obeying the universal rule of "Nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah! - which reads "Do it bigger, do it better, do it first, and you can overlook all subsequent rules." This rule is so primal that it is numbered -1.

[Jeff]

The semi is there for one reason...a rule that is part of a nonexistant body is semiexistant if said rule has a definition.

[Marion]

hi i can t be assed to put caps so theres no need to worry

[Tony]

Marion wrote:

> hi i can t be assed to put caps so theres no need to worry

You might try putting in a bit of punctuation!
Caps, grammar and punctuation aren't only good manners, they assist others who read what we write to make sense of it.
Your little sentence above isn't a problem, but were you to write anything with any substance to it I'd be loth to read it.