Kadaitcha Man

"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

1

"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

1

"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

1

"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

1

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

Kadaitcha Man

"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

1

"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.