|
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
Please be so kind as stare your total ----wittery right in the face... > theory as fact. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You ----tard. User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X) That figures. -- 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" <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$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend > with > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't > fancy > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted > > > notion escapes them. > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > You are a liar. > > > because it became obvious that not > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > Shame on you, eh. > > > but you were ignorant, > > arrogant, > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical philosphies > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > were concerned solely > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye that > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part 1 > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > sentence is unprovable".' > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > +=======================================+ SLAP! Fingerprints and DNA |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend > with > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't > fancy > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted > > > notion escapes them. > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > You are a liar. > > > because it became obvious that not > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > Shame on you, eh. > > > but you were ignorant, > > arrogant, > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical philosphies > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > were concerned solely > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye that > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part 1 > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > sentence is unprovable".' > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > +=======================================+ SLAP! Fingerprints and DNA |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend > with > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't > fancy > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted > > > notion escapes them. > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > You are a liar. > > > because it became obvious that not > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > Shame on you, eh. > > > but you were ignorant, > > arrogant, > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical philosphies > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > were concerned solely > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye that > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part 1 > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > sentence is unprovable".' > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > +=======================================+ SLAP! Fingerprints and DNA |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam@kadaitcha.cx> wrote in message news:c99r1m.tsk.1@kadaitcha.ath.cx... > "James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > news:c98n6r$clp$1@sparta.btinternet.com... > > > > > This statement cannot be proved. > > > > > > > > which one, and why? > > > > > > You work it out, you ------- moron. Of course, you'll have to contend > with > > > self-referential logic, not just notions of basic syntax, so I don't > fancy > > > your chances of figuring it out. > > > > > > I would not be surprised if you were ameriKKKan. ameriKKKans have such a > > > tenuous grasp on language that the meaning of even the most mildly > twisted > > > notion escapes them. > > > > this is the point where i stopped reading > > You are a liar. > > > because it became obvious that not > > only were you bigoted (i'm british, actually) > > Shame on you, eh. > > > but you were ignorant, > > arrogant, > > And that's a revelation to you, is it? > > > and instead of having any interest in debate > > Actually, the statement "this statement cannot be proved" is very > interesting. It leads into major discussions about truth outrunning > provability. In fact, entire bodies of human and mathematical philosphies > are founded upon it. More shame on you, eh. > > > were concerned solely > > with dishing out abuse instead of arguing any kind of case. > > Here, choke on this, ----tard... focus the single, beady, close-set eye that > sits in the middle of your steeply sloping forehead on the words 'Part 1 > demonstrably shows that the self is the notional equivalent of "this > sentence is unprovable".' > > PART 1: You cannot prove that you are you > +=======================================+ SLAP! Fingerprints and DNA |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"1" <1@home.com> wrote in message news:FH1uc.10100$%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 ----. -- 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
"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 ----. -- 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
"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 ----. -- 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
"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 ----. -- 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" <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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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. |
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
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
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
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
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. -- 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: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. -- 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: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. -- 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: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. -- 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: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 |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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 |
Re: The great lie that is evolution
"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 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:13 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands