Jean Chrétien wants proof
Created on: May 4th, 2008
Jean Chrétien wants proof
Jean Chretien explains what a good proof is (it's been proven)

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
(4.42) 419 64 94

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
0 1 0 0 20,630

Inbound links:

views url
34 http://home.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home
4 http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/
2 http://www.poil.ca/index.php
1 https://www.facebook.com/
1 http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=aproofisaproof&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
May 4th, 2008
(1)
I prove 5
May 5th, 2008
(2)
1 +5 = 6
(3)
prove it
May 6th, 2008
(3)
A proof is a proof; it's been proven.
May 6th, 2008
(3)
PROOF THAT POUTINE IS BETTER THAN DELICIOUS: LET x = CHEESE, LET y = FRIES, LET z = GRAVY; KNOWN: CHEESE+FRIES = GOOD, GOOD+GRAVY = GREAT, GREAT*GOOD = DELICIOUS, POUTINE = Y*Z+X, FRIES * POUTINE = 1/2 GOOD - X * (1/2 GOOD) + GRAVY , GOOD*X + GRAVY, GOOD*GREAT +GRAVY, POUTINE = DELICIOUS + GRAVY, POUTINE = DELICIOUS + 1/2 GOOD, QED: POUTINE > DELICIOUS.
May 6th, 2008
(5)
REQUESTING REMIX STAT.
May 6th, 2008
(3)
And when you have a good poop, that because it's poopened.
(49)
Jean Chretien: the first Canadian Prime Minister that couldn't speak either official language.
May 4th, 2008
(4)
^ epic comment
May 5th, 2008
(3)
rofl truth
May 5th, 2008
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
QFT.
May 5th, 2008
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
You didn't quote sh*t. Do you know what QFT stands for?
May 5th, 2008
(4)
QFP
May 5th, 2008
(2)
QED?
(0)
Quoted for EPIC truth. "I heard drugs!" anyone?
May 6th, 2008
(-2)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-2)
Why does Canada need a prime minister? It's just another territory of the US...
May 6th, 2008
(0)
I disaprove the comment over me ^
May 6th, 2008
(-1)
QWERTY FAILED COMMET PLZ DOWNVOTE
May 4th, 2008
(5)
Answer yes or no: Should a YTMND.ca alternate universe be created?
May 4th, 2008
(5)
well, not quite alternate universe, but you know, subtopic-ish?
May 5th, 2008
(-3)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-3)
I'd vote for YTMND.qc.ca : http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=q7hmMh7uD8o
May 6th, 2008
(2)
yes or no
May 6th, 2008
(1)
YES
May 6th, 2008
(0)
I say make a CANADATMND
May 6th, 2008
(2)
POUTINE.
(0)
YTMND.qc.ca
(0)
Yes
(0)
vladimir poutine?
May 4th, 2008
(-9)
[ comment (and 4 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-9)
1'd for CBC NewsWorld.
May 4th, 2008
(0)
wat
(7)
I'm Peter Mansbridge
May 5th, 2008
(-1)
I remember watching that interview. I always wondered how the hell he got into power after hearing that answer, not that I didn't before. lol What a dipstick
(0)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(0)
OMG its the Canadian answer to Rumsfeld!
May 5th, 2008
(0)
citation needed
May 5th, 2008
(-6)
[ comment (and 1 replies) is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-6)
would have been a fiver if it had text... :( ( o Y o ) < ---- boobs
May 5th, 2008
(0)
Haha!
(1)
This sounds like highschool students trying to prove something basic in algebra.
May 5th, 2008
(0)
This site will be sponsored
May 5th, 2008
(1)
by a Canuck
May 5th, 2008
(1)
unless of course the proof of course is the fabulous Mr. Ed
(0)
May 5th, 2008
(0)
Outstanding
May 5th, 2008
(1)
well he's right
May 5th, 2008
(1)
Really? No one's made this site yet? I remember 22 Minutes and Air Farce making cracks at this like 5 years ago, but I guess it's new to non-Canadians
May 5th, 2008
(12)
Us Canadians didn't have Internet then. There was Call-In YTMND, but that required one fax line for images, one phone line for sound, and one TTY line for text.
May 5th, 2008
(0)
Indisputable.
(0)
I just made a poop in my pants except I really didn't
(-2)
so glad you came to ytmnd. now stop posting sites about media you can't even comprehend. you don't know the first thing about ytmnd or how your drabble fits in. just don't ever come back and you shouldn't be upset.
May 6th, 2008
(0)
there's nothing that I don't comprehend about media which I've posted, my drabble fits in quite well, thanks.
(0)
a proof
(0)
your site has proven it's worth
May 6th, 2008
(0)
In four years I can't believe this hasn't been done.
May 6th, 2008
(0)
proof
May 6th, 2008
(0)
F*ck, I've been waiting so long for this.
(-5)
[ comment is below rating threshold and has been hidden ]
(-5)
the french are dumbasses. they have lost every war and their country is full of spooks. nuke france
May 6th, 2008
(2)
i miss chretien now, we need another primeminister with BALLZ
(4)
I was told this often during vector calculus.
May 6th, 2008
(3)
Chretien Proof > GW Bush Sovereignty
(2)
George Bush doesn't care about the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
May 6th, 2008
(0)
I don't know; a proof is a prove. What kind of a prove? It's a prove. A prove is a prove, and when you have a good prove it's because it's proven.
(0)
Proven proof is proof.
May 6th, 2008
(0)
a proof is a proof of koof of koof, and no one can talk to a proof of koof, unless of koof the name of the proof is the famous Jean Chretien
May 6th, 2008
(0)
tard.
May 6th, 2008
(7)
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is.
May 8th, 2008
(2)
Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
May 8th, 2008
(2)
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
May 8th, 2008
(1)
AHHA!! Caught you! With Sean Connery!
(1)
'e was a good President (lol note the blunder)
(3)
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because it works.
May 6th, 2008
(0)
The CRTC will be satisfied by this Canadian content.
(1)
Canada ++
(0)
This is the defining moment in Canadian political history. Seriously. Up here we have whole books written about the Chretien Proof Theorem. It's kind of an old joke though.
May 7th, 2008
(0)
sh*t i don't know
May 7th, 2008
(1)
But I proof from there.
(1)
Not right now you don't
May 7th, 2008
(0)
Oh, how much easier proofs would be if this was an excepted answer...
May 8th, 2008
(0)
Lol canada
May 8th, 2008
(0)
May 8th, 2008
(0)
... ehh, ahh... *sigh*
(-1)
Flawless Victory! Totalogy!
May 8th, 2008
(1)
Oh yeah? Prove it
(3)
The proof is a-a SERIES OF PROOFS
May 8th, 2008
(0)
haha
May 8th, 2008
(0)
the proof is in the pudding
May 10th, 2008
(-1)
wtf
May 10th, 2008
(0)
PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF
May 11th, 2008
(0)
Old as hell, but still humorous in a pinch.
May 22nd, 2008
(0)
the liberals are proven...5stars