I'd eat the ice cream instead. :3
Just wait until someone, yet again, ignores the "RTLFP" rule.
There is 1/3 probability that the shipper coming in would be a Pokeshipper.
(UGH, stop thinking about Math in a Pokemon forum, myself! D<)
Why? Math is fun and always right. Look at this forumula for example:
Ash * Misty = Pokeshipping is an assumed formula that can be disproven given that Pokeshipping is not anti and thus positive.
_/(Ash)= Food - Smart. _/(Misty)=Redhead + Smart. Thus legally _/(Ash * Misty)=
(Food * Redhead) + (Food * Smart) + (Smart * Redhead) - (Smart²) = _/(Pokeshipping)
(Food * Redhead) = (May + Redhead²)
(Food * Smart) = -Ash
(Smart * Redhead) =(Oak + Redhead²)
Smart² = Einstein.
(May + Redhead²) -Ash + (Oak + Redhead²) - Einstein = _/(Pokeshipping)
Let us square again :D
(May² + Redhead^4) - Ash + (Oak² + Redhead^4) - Einstein² = Ash * Misty = Pokeshipping
However. Because Ash is a multiplication of a positive and a negative. Ash is Negative. The only way for Pokeshipping to be positive is if Misty is negative as well. But:
Einstein² ≤ ∞. As long as the possibility remains that Einstein² could = ∞ then
-Einstein² may = -∞. If such is the case, then (May² + Redhead^4) - Ash + (Oak² + Redhead^4) - Einstein² is negative and = Pokeshipping.
So in conclusion, Pokeshipping is not positive and thus always an "anti" shipping. The very existance of Pokeshipping itself can be considered a Contradiction.
EOQ