Moving to new form of usenet ideas?

L

Lester Zick

And we're still awaiting demonstrations of truth for your opinions,
princess. You really are too stupid for words.

~v~~
 
L

Lester Zick

Well, since accuracy _is_ part of truth,

You know you really are a jerk. "Well since this . . ." and "well
since that . . ." and "well since" whatever you feel like opining.
Who says accuracy is a part of anything you haven't and almost
certainly can't even define? You're an idiot.

~v~~
 
L

Lester Zick

And it follows that your answer to any question is whatever you pull
outta your ass.
Besides, I recall from an earlier post of yours that you stated you
had changed it in order to view the proper location of carets, so
what's the big deal?

Horseshit. Why would I change my font to read something I'm not
interested in all that much to begin with? I'd just love to see that
citation.
As for stupidity, I suggest that your inability to do the simple
exercise presented places the ball firmly in _your_ court.

But, perhaps the extra clue given by another poster, that in a
series circuit current is everywhere the same, will get that brain
cell working.

What the **** are you talking about? I don't do exercises from or for
morons. You can't even demonstrate the truth of what you talk about
and you seriously expect to demand others do your exercises?

~v~~
 
J

John Fields

And now you're being tedious, tendentious, and pompous.

---
Hardly. I was merely demonstrating that the sentence you wrote:
"But nothing reflects you." wasn't true, on several levels.

Certainly, for his own spiritual development, someone who goes on
and on about the importance of truth needs to be apprised of his
lack of veracity, wouldn't you agree?
---
Why don't you
admire your reflection in the mirror some more.

---
Narcissism isn't my strong suit.
---
And we're still
awaiting demonstrations of truth for your opinions, princess.

---
Remember R2?
You got two clues and you still can't figure it out, huh, bozo?
---
That's just swell, princess.


Demonstrations of universal truth by finite tautological reduction to
self contradictory alternatives and exhaustive reduction of boolean
conjunctions in mechanical terms. Nothing much.
 
J

John Fields

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:09:16 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:50:00 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:22:39 -0500, John Fields

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:27:58 -0700, Lester Zick

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:03:23 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

You're a goddamned retard.

I know. I've been meaning to speak to my faculty advisor about it but
much like you he thinks reality is played on a Nintendo GameCube too.

Never owned one, you retarded ****.

Faculty advisor? Can't say as I've owned one either. See, the problem
here, oh Chairman of the dorks, is that in science we prefer to state
definitive rationale for what we say. And despite our appreciation for
your unadorned opinions we find they contribute far more to the anals
of science than its annals.


---
Then you should certainly welcome the contributions.


A big, wooden, splintery NYPD broomstick handle! :-]

Probably more in keeping with your experience.


Shoving them up retarded folks like yours asses till it exits your
mouth?... yeah, sure. I enjoy it.

Opinions and shit have assholes like you in common.

Would you like to make an
appointment?

Bring it on.

Demonstrations of truth for your opinions certainly don't.

---
Yes, they do. It's really pretty simple. Here's how it works:
(Read using Courier)

1. You make a statement which you represent as being true (or
factual).

2. I show that the statement you made (which in my opinion was
false) is, indeed, false.

3. My opinion then suddenly becomes factual, my veracity remains
intact and you're proven to be a dirty, rotten liar.
 
J

John Fields

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:26:27 -0700, Lester Zick

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:09:16 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:50:00 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:22:39 -0500, John Fields

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:27:58 -0700, Lester Zick

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:03:23 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

You're a goddamned retard.

I know. I've been meaning to speak to my faculty advisor about it but
much like you he thinks reality is played on a Nintendo GameCube too.

Never owned one, you retarded ****.

Faculty advisor? Can't say as I've owned one either. See, the problem
here, oh Chairman of the dorks, is that in science we prefer to state
definitive rationale for what we say. And despite our appreciation for
your unadorned opinions we find they contribute far more to the anals
of science than its annals.

---
Then you should certainly welcome the contributions.

A big, wooden, splintery NYPD broomstick handle! :-]

Probably more in keeping with your experience.

Shoving them up retarded folks like yours asses till it exits your
mouth?... yeah, sure. I enjoy it.

Opinions and shit have assholes like you in common.

Would you like to make an
appointment?

Bring it on.

Shouldn't this be in alt.flames.cocksuckers? Just curious.

Probably. However I was rather hoping Captain Obvious might sooner or
later proffer demonstrations of truth for his opinions, which might
have proven of some scientific curiosity but which unfortunately (or
more likely fortunately) don't appear to be forthcoming. So by all
means consign it to the flames and let's be done with the nonsense.

---
Translation:

Oh, Mommy, Mommy (boo hoo hoo) this playground is rougher than I
thought and the big boys won't let me win. Please, oh, please, oh
please come and get me! (sob)
 
J

John Fields

Nor, apparently, in producing demonstrations of truth for your
opinions, Captain Oblivious.

---
Now it's Captain Oblivious?
I see. It's one or the other depending on your mood?

Remember R2? That's a pretty good demo and so far you haven't
posted an answer. Perhaps because - oh, I don't know - you don't
want to have to admit to the fact that it's true and lose what
little face you've got left?
 
J

John Fields

Jesus, aren't you the clever one. I just hoped you might know what you
were talking about for a change.

---
Man, are you full of shit!
---
Well there's you and Dork and apparently quite a few others. My
threads have proven immensely popular over the last few years.

---
ISTM you're the one who's doing the following since you wandered in
here by accident and seem to be hanging out because you like the
spankings.

The "immense popularity" of your posts is probably due to the same
reason people can't take their eyes away from a train wreck.
 
J

John Fields

You know you really are a jerk. "Well since this . . ." and "well
since that . . ." and "well since" whatever you feel like opining.
Who says accuracy is a part of anything you haven't and almost
certainly can't even define? You're an idiot.

---
Well, if that's true, then you're really squandering your more-or-
less precious life on this little tête-à-tête, yes?

As for accuracy, dumbass, it can certainly be defined, as a look
inside your lexicon will reveal.

As far as the current "discussion" is concerned, accuracy _is_ most
certainly a part of truth.

Consider: What's the honest-to-God true value of pi?

No one really knows, but if you try to find out with a tape measure
sporting fiducials 10mm apart +/- 0.1mm, with the tolerances being
non-cumulative, your result will certainly be farther from the
truth than if you had a tape measure with fiducials spaced 1mm apart
+/- 0.01mm, again with the tolerances non-cumulative.
 
L

Lester Zick

And thank you for yours.

I think I'm beginning to understand the problem. You guys are just
amateurs. You have no conception of the problems I'm attempting to
address because you're pretty much at the level of hobbyists. Not to
worry. There's no point trying to talk to amateurs.

~v~~
 
L

Lester Zick

Lester Zick (e-mail address removed) posted to sci.electronics.design:


Not a damn lick.

Good. Then start discussing science.
Then quit dissing other things that others do and discuss the science
and engineering that they present.

I diss assholes, asshole.
Science cares not about other things i may have done or do.

Science wouldn't seem to care about anything you've done or may do.
>And

You have your opinion, newcommer. Discuss science and engineering to
build credibility here.

I was trying to but no sense discussing much of anything with
amateurs.
Dissing

That is not discussing science or engineering either.

The thread topic was public censorship, asshole. Pay attention.
Well, you have certainly left no track record of doing science or
engineering here, all we have seen from you is bad mouthing others.

Problem is you guys function at the level of hobbyists not critical
thinkers.

~v~~
 
M

Michael Press

Lester Zick said:
Lester Zick said:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:59:09 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

Lester Zick wrote:
[...]

I know. But it's the best I could do at your level.

Be careful, or you'll give yourself a hernia while trying to reach
that high.

Patriotism being the last resort of scoundrels.
^^^^^^
refuge

^^^^^

Even scoundrels need a last resort.

You did not look up the quotation, even after I posted a correction.
The corrected phrase above remains a misquotation.
Do you know who wrote the line?
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,270
Messages
2,571,353
Members
48,041
Latest member
Oliwen826

Latest Threads

Top