But . . . that also would mean that 10% of the 90% is actually good, right? Or maybe 90% of 90% for 81%? But applying our recursion again, 90% of 81% is just 72.9%? And as the recursion spirals, I think we end up somewhere down in the weeds, looking for a contact lens.
I think we're in violent agreement here, incidentally, that Rolanni's writing (and thoughts) are on the "not crud" end of the scale. YEAH!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
no subject
Date: 2009-02-05 12:06 am (UTC)I think we're in violent agreement here, incidentally, that Rolanni's writing (and thoughts) are on the "not crud" end of the scale. YEAH!