I prove 5

+1

1 +5 = 6

+2

prove it

+3

A proof is a proof; it's been proven.

+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.

+2

REQUESTING REMIX STAT.

+5

A poop is a poop.

And when you have a good poop, that because it's poopened.

+3

Jean Chretien: the first Canadian Prime Minister that couldn't speak either official language.

+48

^ epic comment

+4

rofl truth

+3

QFT.

-3

You didn't quote sh*t. Do you know what QFT stands for?

-2

QFP

+4

QED?

+2

Quoted for EPIC truth. "I heard drugs!" anyone?

Why does Canada need a prime minister? It's just another territory of the US...

-2 [show comment][hide comment]

I disaprove the comment over me ^

FLQ

QWERTY FAILED COMMET PLZ DOWNVOTE

-1

Answer yes or no: Should a YTMND.ca alternate universe be created?

+5

well, not quite alternate universe, but you know, subtopic-ish?

+5

I'd vote for YTMND.qc.ca : http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=q7hmMh7uD8o

-3

yes or no

+2

YES

+1

I say make a CANADATMND

POUTINE.

+2

YTMND.qc.ca

Yes

vladimir poutine?

No. It would suck.

1'd for CBC NewsWorld.

-8

:( it was indirect, first from youtube

5'd for CBC NewsWorld. TAKE THAT!

+4

yay for static equilibrium

Fail

wat

I'm Peter Mansbridge

+7

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

-1

OMG its the Canadian answer to Rumsfeld!

citation needed

would have been a fiver if it had text... :( ( o Y o ) < ---- boobs

-6

what text would you like?

Haha!

This sounds like highschool students trying to prove something basic in algebra.

+1

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

an absent proof is a proof because it's been proven

This site will be sponsored

by a Canuck

+1

unless of course the proof of course is the fabulous Mr. Ed

+1

Outstanding

well he's right

+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

+1

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.

+12

Indisputable.

I just made a poop in my pants except I really didn't

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.

-2

there's nothing that I don't comprehend about media which I've posted, my drabble fits in quite well, thanks.

a proof

your site has proven it's worth

In four years I can't believe this hasn't been done.

proof

F*ck, I've been waiting so long for this.

the french are dumbasses. they have lost every war and their country is full of spooks. nuke france

-5

i miss chretien now, we need another primeminister with BALLZ

+2

I was told this often during vector calculus.

+4

Chretien Proof > GW Bush Sovereignty

+3

George Bush doesn't care about the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

+2

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.

Proven proof is proof.

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

tard.

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.

+7

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.

+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.

+2

AHHA!! Caught you! With Sean Connery!

+1

'e was a good President (lol note the blunder)

+1

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.

+3

The CRTC will be satisfied by this Canadian content.

Canada ++

+1

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.

sh*t i don't know

But I proof from there.

+1

Not right now you don't

+1

Oh, how much easier proofs would be if this was an excepted answer...

Lol canada

... ehh, ahh... *sigh*

Flawless Victory! Totalogy!

-1

Oh yeah? Prove it

+1

The proof is a-a SERIES OF PROOFS

+3

haha

the proof is in the pudding

wtf

-1

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

Old as hell, but still humorous in a pinch.