Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
>>
>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which one, and why?
>>>>>
>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have
>>>>> such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the
>>>>> most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
>>>>
>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
>>>
>>> You are a liar.
>>>
>>>> because it became obvious that not
>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
>>>
>>> Shame on you, eh.
>>>
>>>> but you were ignorant,
>>>> arrogant,
>>>
>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
>>>
>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
>>>
>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
>>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
>>> provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
>>> philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.
>>>
>>>> were concerned solely
>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
>>>
>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set
>>> eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the
>>> words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional
>>> equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
>>>
>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
>>> +=======================================+
>>
>> SLAP!
>> Fingerprints and DNA
>
> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
>
> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA
> was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
>
> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.

Who said that?
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
> >>
> >> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> >> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> >>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> >>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> which one, and why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
> >>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
> >>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have
> >>>>> such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the
> >>>>> most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
> >>>>
> >>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
> >>>
> >>> You are a liar.
> >>>
> >>>> because it became obvious that not
> >>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
> >>>
> >>> Shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> but you were ignorant,
> >>>> arrogant,
> >>>
> >>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
> >>>
> >>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
> >>>
> >>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
> >>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
> >>> provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
> >>> philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> were concerned solely
> >>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
> >>>
> >>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set
> >>> eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the
> >>> words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional
> >>> equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
> >>>
> >>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
> >>> +=======================================+
> >>
> >> SLAP!
> >> Fingerprints and DNA
> >
> > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
> >
> > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA
> > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
> > argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
> >
> > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>
> Who said that?

Who said what, ----nuts?



--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
> >>
> >> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> >> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> >>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> >>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> which one, and why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
> >>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
> >>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have
> >>>>> such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the
> >>>>> most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
> >>>>
> >>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
> >>>
> >>> You are a liar.
> >>>
> >>>> because it became obvious that not
> >>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
> >>>
> >>> Shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> but you were ignorant,
> >>>> arrogant,
> >>>
> >>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
> >>>
> >>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
> >>>
> >>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
> >>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
> >>> provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
> >>> philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> were concerned solely
> >>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
> >>>
> >>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set
> >>> eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the
> >>> words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional
> >>> equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
> >>>
> >>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
> >>> +=======================================+
> >>
> >> SLAP!
> >> Fingerprints and DNA
> >
> > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
> >
> > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA
> > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
> > argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
> >
> > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>
> Who said that?

Who said what, ----nuts?



--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
> >>
> >> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> >> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> >>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> >>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> which one, and why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
> >>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
> >>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have
> >>>>> such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the
> >>>>> most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
> >>>>
> >>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
> >>>
> >>> You are a liar.
> >>>
> >>>> because it became obvious that not
> >>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
> >>>
> >>> Shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> but you were ignorant,
> >>>> arrogant,
> >>>
> >>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
> >>>
> >>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
> >>>
> >>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
> >>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
> >>> provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
> >>> philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> were concerned solely
> >>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
> >>>
> >>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set
> >>> eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the
> >>> words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional
> >>> equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
> >>>
> >>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
> >>> +=======================================+
> >>
> >> SLAP!
> >> Fingerprints and DNA
> >
> > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
> >
> > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA
> > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
> > argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
> >
> > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>
> Who said that?

Who said what, ----nuts?



--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
> >>
> >> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> >> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> >>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> >>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> which one, and why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
> >>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
> >>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have
> >>>>> such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the
> >>>>> most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
> >>>>
> >>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
> >>>
> >>> You are a liar.
> >>>
> >>>> because it became obvious that not
> >>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
> >>>
> >>> Shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> but you were ignorant,
> >>>> arrogant,
> >>>
> >>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
> >>>
> >>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
> >>>
> >>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
> >>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning
> >>> provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical
> >>> philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh.
> >>>
> >>>> were concerned solely
> >>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
> >>>
> >>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set
> >>> eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the
> >>> words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is the notional
> >>> equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
> >>>
> >>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
> >>> +=======================================+
> >>
> >> SLAP!
> >> Fingerprints and DNA
> >
> > <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
> >
> > You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because DNA
> > was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
> > argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
> >
> > You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>
> Who said that?

Who said what, ----nuts?



--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which one, and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
>>>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
>>>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans
>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even
>>>>>>> the most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> because it became obvious that not
>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
>>>>>
>>>>> Shame on you, eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you were ignorant,
>>>>>> arrogant,
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
>>>>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
>>>>> eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> were concerned solely
>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady,
>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping
>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is
>>>>> the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
>>>>>
>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
>>>>> +=======================================+
>>>>
>>>> SLAP!
>>>> Fingerprints and DNA
>>>
>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
>>>
>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because
>>> DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
>>> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
>>>
>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>>
>> Who said that?
>
> Who said what, ----nuts?

There it is again!!
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which one, and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
>>>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
>>>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans
>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even
>>>>>>> the most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> because it became obvious that not
>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
>>>>>
>>>>> Shame on you, eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you were ignorant,
>>>>>> arrogant,
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
>>>>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
>>>>> eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> were concerned solely
>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady,
>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping
>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is
>>>>> the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
>>>>>
>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
>>>>> +=======================================+
>>>>
>>>> SLAP!
>>>> Fingerprints and DNA
>>>
>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
>>>
>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because
>>> DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
>>> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
>>>
>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>>
>> Who said that?
>
> Who said what, ----nuts?

There it is again!!
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which one, and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
>>>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
>>>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans
>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even
>>>>>>> the most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> because it became obvious that not
>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
>>>>>
>>>>> Shame on you, eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you were ignorant,
>>>>>> arrogant,
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
>>>>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
>>>>> eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> were concerned solely
>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady,
>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping
>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is
>>>>> the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
>>>>>
>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
>>>>> +=======================================+
>>>>
>>>> SLAP!
>>>> Fingerprints and DNA
>>>
>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
>>>
>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because
>>> DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
>>> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
>>>
>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>>
>> Who said that?
>
> Who said what, ----nuts?

There it is again!!
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
>>>>
>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
>>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
>>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which one, and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
>>>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
>>>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans
>>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even
>>>>>>> the most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> because it became obvious that not
>>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
>>>>>
>>>>> Shame on you, eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but you were ignorant,
>>>>>> arrogant,
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
>>>>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
>>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
>>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
>>>>> eh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> were concerned solely
>>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady,
>>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping
>>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is
>>>>> the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
>>>>>
>>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
>>>>> +=======================================+
>>>>
>>>> SLAP!
>>>> Fingerprints and DNA
>>>
>>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
>>>
>>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because
>>> DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
>>> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
>>>
>>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
>>
>> Who said that?
>
> Who said what, ----nuts?

There it is again!!
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

Re: The great lie that is evolution
 

"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrqo5FghfbrU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2hrpibFg4gl9U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:FH1uc.10100$%T.4836@okepread05...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> >>>> news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> >>>>> "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> >>>>> message news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >>>>>>>>> This statement cannot be proved.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> which one, and why?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to
> >>>>>>> contend with self-referential logic, not just notions of basic
> >>>>>>> syntax, so I don't fancy your chances of figuring it out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans
> >>>>>>> have such a tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even
> >>>>>>> the most mildly twisted notion escapes them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this is the point where i stopped reading
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are a liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> because it became obvious that not
> >>>>>> only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shame on you, eh.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> but you were ignorant,
> >>>>>> arrogant,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And that's a revelation to you, is it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and instead of having any interest in debate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very
> >>>>> interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth
> >>>>> outrunning provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and
> >>>>> mathematical philosphies are founded upon it. More shame on you,
> >>>>> eh.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> were concerned solely
> >>>>>> with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady,
> >>>>> close-set eye that sits in the middle of your steeply sloping
> >>>>> forehead on the words 'Part 1 demonstrably shows that the self is
> >>>>> the notional equivalent of "this sentence is unprovable".'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you
> >>>>> +=======================================+
> >>>>
> >>>> SLAP!
> >>>> Fingerprints and DNA
> >>>
> >>> <------- WHAING GREAT BITCHTHWACK>
> >>>
> >>> You didn't read it, did you, ----tard? Don't say you did, because
> >>> DNA was dealt with and dismissed, with fully verifiable supporting
> >>> argument, and to a level of proof acceptable in courts of law.
> >>>
> >>> You may now ---- right off and die, you dumb ----.
> >>
> >> Who said that?
> >
> > Who said what, ----nuts?
>
> There it is again!!



--
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
gentoo Linux kernel 2.6.5 <-- rolled my own