Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:otudnSvW9I1MbYrVnZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:bqSdnW4u5foWdIrVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> Godel was wrong.
>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>>
>>>> Signatured.
>>>>
>>> Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently

>>> self-evident.  It is not a proof.  It is an argument.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>>
>> Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological 
>> Proof". (0.66 seconds)
>>
>> It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've 
>> already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than 
>> Gödel, what are your university qualifications, affiliations and 
>> achievements in regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
>
> The axioms are not sufficiently self evident.
>
> Results 1 - 10 of about 197 for Godel's "ontological proof"
self-evident. 
> (0.27 seconds)
>
> In order for an axiom to be true, it has to be self-evident.  Axiom 5 is

> not, on its own.
>
>>
>> Names, dates, places, please.
>
> I don't need to give them to you. It is evident that you don't know what

> Godel's Ontological Argument is.

Real meaning: He's qualified only to swill the pigs.

>>> But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel
like 
>>> an adult.  You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think 
>>> about me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon 
>>> their experience with me, not because you post a short three-word 
>>> sentence with no context.
>>
>> I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most 
>> significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on 
>> wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
>
> From your cite:

What cite?

You get to go no further until you sort that one out.

> By the way, how old are you?

I will not have *** with you unless you give me the candy first, mister.

> Grow up.

Grow a brain.

-- 
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursup****t.helpdesk

Member of:
   Usenet Ruiner List
   Top Assholes on the Net List
   Most hated usenetizens of all time List
   Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E

"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arnold@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> giving technical
advice. news:k96dnd110uImNojVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]