Christmas vs "Holidays"

I read in sci.electronics.design that wrote (in
.com) about
'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:

Not sure what you mean he sorry. Perhaps I should explain what I
meant?

I know what you meant; I was applying 'relentless logic'. If a date of
writing is proven false, it was false from whenever it was stated, not
from when the falsity was discovered.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that wrote (in
.com) about
'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:

Not sure what you mean he sorry. Perhaps I should explain what I
meant?

I know what you meant; I was applying 'relentless logic'. If a date of
writing is proven false, it was false from whenever it was stated, not
from when the falsity was discovered.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise
wrote (in ) about 'Christmas
vs "Holidays"', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:
(and
practically everything else, for that matter, even Moties?)

I don't recall any mention of enantiomorphism among Moties.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise
wrote (in ) about 'Christmas
vs "Holidays"', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:
(and
practically everything else, for that matter, even Moties?)

I don't recall any mention of enantiomorphism among Moties.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Pig Bladder wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:55:45 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:26:15 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pretty simple. Its full of demonstrable blatant contradictions, so
this view is not debateable. In science, when when get
contradictions, we declare the thing to be false. e.g.
www.evilbible.com.
Well, I know now you can not be a scientist,

oh?

because the ones I know
say that if they get solutions that are contradictory, they first
check the input for errors and then rerun the program.

I didn't claim that *only* when a *solution* is *apparently*
contradictory that the thing is false. I said when we get
contradictions. This implicitly implies that there exists a
*verifiable* contradiction at the deepest level.

Aylward, your "deepest level" hasn't even scratched the surface of
Reality.

You think you exist, because you only think. You are in deep, deep,
denial.

This is a verifiable, scientifically, incontrovertibly proven fact.

Meaningless gibberish.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
Pig Bladder wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:55:45 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:26:15 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pretty simple. Its full of demonstrable blatant contradictions, so
this view is not debateable. In science, when when get
contradictions, we declare the thing to be false. e.g.
www.evilbible.com.
Well, I know now you can not be a scientist,

oh?

because the ones I know
say that if they get solutions that are contradictory, they first
check the input for errors and then rerun the program.

I didn't claim that *only* when a *solution* is *apparently*
contradictory that the thing is false. I said when we get
contradictions. This implicitly implies that there exists a
*verifiable* contradiction at the deepest level.

Aylward, your "deepest level" hasn't even scratched the surface of
Reality.

You think you exist, because you only think. You are in deep, deep,
denial.

This is a verifiable, scientifically, incontrovertibly proven fact.

Meaningless gibberish.

Please remove
alt.genealogy

from this thread.

It is easy, mark it and push delete.

Merry Christmas

Kurt F

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
Pig Bladder wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:55:45 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:26:15 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pretty simple. Its full of demonstrable blatant contradictions, so
this view is not debateable. In science, when when get
contradictions, we declare the thing to be false. e.g.
www.evilbible.com.
Well, I know now you can not be a scientist,

oh?

because the ones I know
say that if they get solutions that are contradictory, they first
check the input for errors and then rerun the program.

I didn't claim that *only* when a *solution* is *apparently*
contradictory that the thing is false. I said when we get
contradictions. This implicitly implies that there exists a
*verifiable* contradiction at the deepest level.

Aylward, your "deepest level" hasn't even scratched the surface of
Reality.

You think you exist, because you only think. You are in deep, deep,
denial.

This is a verifiable, scientifically, incontrovertibly proven fact.

Meaningless gibberish.

Please remove
alt.genealogy

from this thread.

It is easy, mark it and push delete.

Merry Christmas

Kurt F

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
Pig Bladder wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:55:45 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:26:15 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pretty simple. Its full of demonstrable blatant contradictions, so
this view is not debateable. In science, when when get
contradictions, we declare the thing to be false. e.g.
www.evilbible.com.
Well, I know now you can not be a scientist,

oh?

because the ones I know
say that if they get solutions that are contradictory, they first
check the input for errors and then rerun the program.

I didn't claim that *only* when a *solution* is *apparently*
contradictory that the thing is false. I said when we get
contradictions. This implicitly implies that there exists a
*verifiable* contradiction at the deepest level.

Aylward, your "deepest level" hasn't even scratched the surface of
Reality.

You think you exist, because you only think. You are in deep, deep,
denial.

This is a verifiable, scientifically, incontrovertibly proven fact.

Meaningless gibberish.

Please remove
alt.genealogy

from this thread.

It is easy, mark it and push delete.

Merry Christmas

Kurt F

TAKE YOUR FRIGGIN XTIAN XMAS AND GO STRAIGHT TO *HELL* WITH IT. AS FAR
AS I'M CONCERNED, YOUR GODDAM NATIVITY SCENES SHOULD ALL BE SMASHED.
TAKE *YOUR* ILLITERATE AND IGNORANT IDEA OF XIANITY AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR
ASS- YOU ARE HOPELESS MORON IN NEED OF A PSEUDO-PARENT AKA JC.

jsmith wrote:
The secularists ... [SNIP GRABAGE]

TAKE YOUR FRIGGIN XTIAN XMAS AND GO STRAIGHT TO *HELL* WITH IT. AS FAR
AS I'M CONCERNED, YOUR GODDAM NATIVITY SCENES SHOULD ALL BE SMASHED.
TAKE *YOUR* ILLITERATE AND IGNORANT IDEA OF XIANITY AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR
ASS- YOU ARE HOPELESS MORON IN NEED OF A PSEUDO-PARENT AKA JC.

jsmith wrote:
The secularists ... [SNIP GRABAGE]