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