"C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > "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!!
>
>
>
>
> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried.

You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read
something.

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

 

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05...
> >
> > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%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 ----.
> > >
> > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the
same
> > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.
>
> Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than
> empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.
>
>
Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there

 

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05...
> >
> > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%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 ----.
> > >
> > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the
same
> > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.
>
> Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than
> empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.
>
>
Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there

 

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05...
> >
> > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%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 ----.
> > >
> > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the
same
> > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.
>
> Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than
> empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.
>
>
Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there

 

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
news:c9beb8.11kk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:T82uc.10341$%T.7603@okepread05...
> >
> > "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message
> > news:c9bdnm.15j0.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx...
> > > "1" <1@home.com> wrote in message
news:FH1uc.10100$%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 ----.
> > >
> > Did read it and DNA was not fully dismissed. It was delt with in the
same
> > lame way you deal with things. with nonsense that sounds convincing.
>
> Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than
> empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.
>
>
Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
A little louder. Im almost there

 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "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!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried.
>
> You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read
> something.

AAIIGGHHH!!

This is freakin' me out.
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "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!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried.
>
> You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read
> something.

AAIIGGHHH!!

This is freakin' me out.
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "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!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried.
>
> You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read
> something.

AAIIGGHHH!!

This is freakin' me out.
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

 

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "C'Pi" <askme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2hrr54Fg08hiU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "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!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah...seems to be all better now. I was getting worried.
>
> You should be worried. You seem to be hearing voices when you read
> something.

AAIIGGHHH!!

This is freakin' me out.
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."

 

"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:lM2uc.10655$%T.3453@okepread05...

> > Then counter argue, ----tard, otherwise you have nothing other than
> > empty-minded blubberings. Nothing surprising there, really.
> >
> >
> Nope- I just like hearing you squeal.
> A little louder. Im almost there

Where is the squealing in the stament you refer to?

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