Leopardsox will be indoors on Thurs

[GORDY GAMBINO]

We re going to get 6 mm of rain on Tues and that's about it.



For the week.



Where LS  lives though yeph they gonna get A low pressure system will sweep across state on Wednesday and Thursday and is forecast to dump up to 40mm of rain and lash swathes of South Australia with strong winds.



The "significant" storm front prompted authorities to warn residents on Saturday night to be on alert amid fears some areas, swollen creeks and waterways will be unable to cope with a freshwater deluge.



The multi-million dollar clean-up from the recent damaging spring storm is expected to take months after more than 80 homes were flooded as more than 100mm fell.





40mm oh that's fucken noice good for the farmers hey while Adelaide gets washed down the drain which is a very befitting place for the Arsehole Of Australia to go.



 



Anyway good luck old chap and Tally Ho .



Got a reason to whinge and fucken grizzle for a couple weeks at least as they do there.



   

[Frood]

He might appreciate the opportunity to shower.

[Anonymous]

He might appreciate the opportunity to shower.

I thought you were done here old feller?

[Bricktop]

We can take a little precipitation.



Besides, it goes without saying we live on TOP of the mountain. No floods here.

[GORDY GAMBINO]

Can always borrow a boat off a g@@k

[Bricktop]

Why?



The creek is 200 metres BELOW our house.

[GORDY GAMBINO]

Well if you don't like it put a g@@k under each arm and row to England in ya boat.

[GORDY GAMBINO]

555....now I shall give you the answer in Adelaidian speak being free settlers and all that shit so here goes



For all x closer to a than ~ the value of f at x is closer to l than E. The

definition begins by stating that such a positive ~ can be found for each positive E.

Of course, ~ will vary with E; if E is made smaller, we will generally have to

go closer to a, that is, we will have to take ~ smaller, before all the values of f

on (a - ~, a + ~) - {a} become E close to l.

The variables 'E' and '~' are almost always restricted to positive real numbers,

and from now on we shall let this restriction be implicit unless there seems

to be some special call for explicitness. Thus we shall write simply ('v'E)(3~) ...

The definition of convergence is used in various ways. In the simplest

situations we are given one or more functions having limits at a, say, f(x) ---+ u

and g(x) ---+ v, and we want to prove that some other function h has a limit 10

at a. In such cases we always try to find an inequality expressing the quantity we

wish to make small, Ih(x) - 101, in terms of the quantities which we know can be

made small, If(x) - ul and Ig(x) - vi.

For example, suppose that h = f + g. Since f(x) is close to u and g(x) is

close to v, clearly hex) is close to 10 = U + v. But how close? Since hex) - 10 =

(f(x) - u) + (g(x) - v), we have

Ih(x) - 101 ::; If(x) - ul + Ig(x) - vi.

From thi~ it is clear that in order to make Ih(x) - 101 less than E it is sufficient

to make each of If(x) - ul and Ig(x) - vi less than E/2. Therefore, given any E,

we can take ~l so that 0 < Ix - al < ~l => If(x) - ul < E/2, and ~2 so that

o < Ix - al < ~2 => Ig(x) - vi < E/2, and we can then take ~ as the smaller

of these two numbers, so that if 0 < Ix - al < ~, then both inequalities hold.

Thus

o < Ix - al < ~ => Ih(x) - 101 ::; If(x) - ul + Ig(x) - vi < ~ + ~ = E,

and we have found the desired ~ for the function h.

Suppose next that u r!= 0 and that h = l/f. Clearly, hex) is close to 10 = l/u

whenf(x) is close to u, and so we try to express hex) - 10 in terms of f(x) - u.

Thus

1 1 u - f(x)

hex) - 10 = f(x) - U = f(x)u '

and so Ih(x) - 101 ::; If(x) - ul/lf(x)ul. The trouble here is that the denominator

is variable, and if it should happen to be very small, it might cancel the

smallness of If(x) - ul and not force a small quotient. But the answer to this

problem is easy. Sincef(x) is close to u and u is not zero, f(x) cannot be close to

zero. For instance, if f(x) is closer to u than lul/2, then f(x) must be farther

from 0 than lul/2. We therefore choose ~l so that 0 < Ix - al < ~l =>

If(x) - ul < lul/2, from which it follows that If(x) I > lul/2. Then

Ih(x) - 101 < 2If(x) - ul/luI 2,



Basically ya fucked .

[Bricktop]

In Perth speak.



It rain. Big wet. Need boat.

[Frood]

He might appreciate the opportunity to shower.

I thought you were done here old feller?

Are you?

[GORDY GAMBINO]

In Perth speak.



It rain. Big wet. Need boat.

Fuck finally a post where I don't need a thesaurus  and a degree in ancient history to decipher.



Maybe you should do the same in court.....'' yeah boss I seen him, he fucken did it so I nicked him and whacked the bracelets on and he said you fucken cop cunt.'' rather than the usual eloquent bullshit we are submitted to.

[Frood]

In Perth speak.



It rain. Big wet. Need boat.

Fuck finally a post where I don't need a thesaurus  and a degree in ancient history to decipher.



Maybe you should do the same in court.....'' yeah boss I seen him, he fucken did it so I nicked him and whacked the bracelets on and he said you fucken cop cunt.'' rather than the usual eloquent bullshit we are submitted to.

Subjected.  ac_razz

[GORDY GAMBINO]

thx mate

[Frood]

thx mate

No wucking furries.