Re: Solution to the energy shortage?

"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nospam.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1raeen.kkp.19.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Marko Pojatina" <mpojatin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fvdnb5$niu$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Kadaitcha Man, could you please address DanielSan's claims that Axiom
5
is
> > not self-evident?
>
> Can not and will not are two different things. I can, but I will not.

TRANSLATION: You are full of ****.

<snip attempts to dodge DanielSan's claims>

> > I'm really interested in your discussion. Thanks.
>
> Just like you,

I assumed nothing. I merely asked you in a *very polite* way to address
his
claims because I was sincerely interested in what you have to say. You
might
have even convinced me that you are right. Since you were incapabale of
doing that and being the antisocial dip**** that you are, you immediately
resorted to insults. Unfortunately, now I'll have to block you for the
sake
of my bandwith and my time.

> DanielSan assumed that if he dropped a stinking turd then I
> would pick it up and run with it. If you want a discussion on axiom 5,
post
> your position on it.

I said I was interested in your [i.e. DanielSan's and yours] discussion,
not
that I want to have a discussion with you. That was supposed to be a
compliment meant to make my request sound friendlier and prettier,
considering the fact that most of the thread is based on insults. Reading
comprehension is a rare skill, indeed. So is rudimentary semantic and
pragmatic analysis. Now that you have shown yourself to be so retarded as
to
be unable to comprehend simple English sentences, it is obvious why you
can't realize that your argument is completely meaningless. That is the
main
difference between Gödel and you - he knew its weakness and never
published
it. You couldn't understand it if it sat on your ugly little ****-covered
face.

> Just who the **** do you think is stupid enough to argue against a null
> proposition, you ****ing stupid, flapwitted toad?

You were obviously stupid enough to take a vague argument which can
"prove"
just about anything you can imagine, have the audicity to call it a proof,
and use it to pompously parade and insult people in a newsgroup in which
you
are not very welcome. It's quite obvious that your intention was never to
convince someone that you're right (since you clearly blew the chance to
convince me). You're just a typical ****-for-brains Gawdist who's just
full
of hot air.