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."