Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> "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.

You cited Wikipedia.

<snip childishness>