Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"DanielSan" <danielsan1977@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:K7qdnfJ0EuqEa4rVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

I did no such thing. Take careful note of the word "Apparently".

cite
   To quote as an authority or example.

apparently
   Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming

> <snip childishness>

So, what university did you go to that they taught you that a superficial 
reference is equivalent to a quoted authority?

-- 
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]