Re: DVD

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Prigdash the clown-panicker, Jan 28, 2005.

  1. Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:


    > If there was a ghawd


    Prove that there isn't.




    --
    G Morgan admits that he gets told he's a
    fuckwit, not just on usenet, but in in real
    life too: "I have my share of detractors in RL"
    news:
    Prigdash the clown-panicker, Jan 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Prigdash the clown-panicker

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    On 2005-01-28, Prigdash the clown-panicker <-obsessive-degenerate.org> wrote:
    > Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
    >
    >
    >> If there was a ghawd

    >
    > Prove that there isn't.


    Prove that there is.

    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
    JEDIDIAH, Feb 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
    <>
    wrote
    on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:11:51 GMT
    <1107270711.4bff5b831703ae55cbab8c8525da999b@1usenet>:
    > On 2005-01-28, Prigdash the clown-panicker <-obsessive-degenerate.org> wrote:
    >> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> If there was a ghawd

    >>
    >> Prove that there isn't.

    >
    > Prove that there is.
    >


    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ghawd

    No entry found for ghawd.

    Did you mean GAD?
    Suggestions:
    GAD
    Gad
    gad
    Gard
    Gowd
    gaud
    gead
    ghat
    goad
    Gade
    ...

    There. Proof that there isn't a Ghawd. :)

    Followups.

    --
    #191,
    It's still legal to go .sigless.
    The Ghost In The Machine, Feb 2, 2005
    #3
  4. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
    <> wrote:
    > <1107270711.4bff5b831703ae55cbab8c8525da999b@1usenet>:
    >> On 2005-01-28, Prigdash the clown-panicker wrote:
    >> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> If there was a ghawd

    >>
    >> Prove that there isn't.

    >
    > Prove that there is.


    Sure. Your pathetic diversion and your inability to neither put up nor shut
    up is noted by the way.

    When I prove it, it is highly unlikely that you will understand it.
    Nevertheless, choke on this and make a total fool out of yourself...

    Don't forget, "ghawd" = omnipotent metaphysical X.

    Definition 1: X is ghawd-like iff X has as essential propertie­s those and
    only those properties which are positive.

    Definition 2: A is an essence of X iff for every property B,­ X has B
    necessarily iff A entails B.

    Definition 3: X necessarily exists iff every essence of X is­ necessarily
    exemplified.

    Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not­ positive.

    Axiom 2: Any property entailed by, i.e., strictly implied ­by, a positive
    property is positive.

    Axiom 3: The property of being ghawd-like is positive.

    Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily p­ositive.

    Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

    Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being ne­cessarily P is
    positive.

    Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent,­ i.e.,
    possibly exemplified.

    Corollary 1: The property of being ghawd-like is consistent.

    Theorem 2: If something is ghawd-like, then the property of be­ing
    ghawd-like is an essence of that thing.

    Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being ghawd-like is ex­emplified.

    Your turn.
    Yaman al-Arubah, Feb 2, 2005
    #4
  5. On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:15:36 +0545 (UTC), Yaman al-Arubah
    <-misanthropic-flushless-toilet.org>
    wrote:

    >Corollary 1: The property of being ghawd-like is consistent.
    >
    >Theorem 2: If something is ghawd-like, then the property of be­ing
    >ghawd-like is an essence of that thing.
    >
    >Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being ghawd-like is ex­emplified.


    Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.

    >Definition 1: X is ghawd-like iff X has as essential propertie­s those and
    >only those properties which are positive.


    Ghawd, by definition must contain all positive and all negative
    attributes. Anything less than that would be less than ghawd and
    should be factored in to your equation.

    Bedwarmer

    --
    "Local Power Company, how may I assist you today?"

    "My power is going out."

    "Have all your lights gone?"

    "No, just the one in the refrigerator."

    www.userfriendly.org
    Governor Swill, Feb 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Governor Swill, <>, wrote:

    > On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:15:36 +0545 (UTC), Yaman al-Arubah
    > <-misanthropic-flushless-toilet.org>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Corollary 1: The property of being ghawd-like is consistent.
    >>
    >> Theorem 2: If something is ghawd-like, then the property of be­ing
    >> ghawd-like is an essence of that thing.
    >>
    >> Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being ghawd-like is
    >> ex­emplified.

    >
    > Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.


    Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
    flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do you,
    fucktard? funny how you should snip the first definition and not address it
    at all eh? You do know what essential and positive mean in logic, don't you
    retard? Hmmm? No doubt you have iff down as a spelling or typo error too,
    hey?

    Put up or shut up, you stupid ****.

    PS: You just dissed Gödel's Ontological Proof. You do know who Gödel was,
    don't you, snotfuck? And you are aware that the best brains on the planet
    haven't been able to destroy it with a mere "Your first definition is
    flawed, therefore your theory is flawed", aren't you, fucktard? Hmm?

    Of course you are aware of that. That's why you display your fuckwittery on
    usenet the way you do, isn't it? To hide the fact that you're the possessor
    of the most brilliant brain on the planet, yes? Of course, that's it. The
    best brain on the planet posts lames on usenet like "More reasonably, your
    dad forgetting to stop by the drugstore on the way to your mom's house that
    night was OBVIOUSLY a mistake."

    You dumbfuck ****.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! "Gödel, one of the most notable logicians of our time,
    is wrong because I say so!"
    Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath, Feb 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Prigdash the clown-panicker

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    On 2005-02-03, Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath <-disowned-queer.org> wrote:
    > Governor Swill, <>, wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:15:36 +0545 (UTC), Yaman al-Arubah
    >> <-misanthropic-flushless-toilet.org>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Corollary 1: The property of being ghawd-like is consistent.
    >>>
    >>> Theorem 2: If something is ghawd-like, then the property of be­ing
    >>> ghawd-like is an essence of that thing.
    >>>
    >>> Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being ghawd-like is
    >>> ex­emplified.

    >>
    >> Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.

    >
    > Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
    > flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do you,


    Such is the nature of religion.

    [deletia]


    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
    JEDIDIAH, Feb 3, 2005
    #7
  8. On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:15:34 +0545 (UTC), Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath
    <-disowned-queer.org> wrote:

    >> Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.

    >
    >Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
    >flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do you,
    >fucktard?


    wit: a message whose ingenuity or verbal skill or incongruity has
    the power to evoke laughter
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    the trait of appreciating (and being able to express) the
    humorous; "she didn't appreciate my humor"; "you can't survive in the
    army without a sense of humor"
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    temper: a characteristic (habitual or relatively temporary) state
    of feeling; "whether he praised or cursed me depended on his temper at
    the time"; "he was in a bad humor"
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    the quality of being funny; "I fail to see the humor in it"
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    (Middle Ages) one of the four fluids in the body whose balance was
    believed to determine your emotional and physical state; "the humors
    are blood and phlegm and yellow and black bile"
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    liquid body substance: the liquid parts of the body
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    put into a good mood
    www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

    Swill

    --
    "Local Power Company, how may I assist you today?"

    "My power is going out."

    "Have all your lights gone?"

    "No, just the one in the refrigerator."

    www.userfriendly.org
    Governor Swill, Feb 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Governor Swill, <>, wrote:

    > On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:15:34 +0545 (UTC), Abdul-Muhaimin al-Fath
    > <-disowned-queer.org> wrote:
    >
    >>> Your first definition is flawed, therefore your theory is flawed.

    >>
    >> Really? So you expect to just get away with "Your first definition is
    >> flawed, therefore your theory is flawed" and leave it at that, do
    >> you, fucktard?

    >
    > wit:


    So you can't backup your statement and instead feel forced to claim wit? Is
    that what you wish to imply?

    Paraphrase of "Governor Swill": "When I claimed that Gödel, one of the most
    notable logicians of our time, was wrong, I was just being witty. Really."
    Yaphet Schumacher, Feb 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Prigdash the clown-panicker

    Rob Hughes Guest

    Prigdash the clown-panicker is alleged to have said in
    comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
    >
    >
    >> If there was a ghawd

    >
    > Prove that there isn't.
    >


    I'll prove that negative right after you prove there is. But FYI, there
    isn't. Just trying to save you the trouble...

    --
    Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.
    Rob Hughes, Feb 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:

    > Prigdash the clown-panicker is alleged to have said in
    > comp.os.linux.advocacy:
    >
    >> Rob Hughes, <>, wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> If there was a ghawd

    >>
    >> Prove that there isn't.
    >>

    >
    > I'll prove that negative right after you prove there is.


    Are you one of those completely illogical fucktards who are so absolutely
    stupid that you believe it is not possible to prove a negative? Hmmm? You
    are, aren't you snotfuck?

    Try your fuckwittery on these, cuntard:

    I do not have three legs.
    My youngest child does not have a younger brother or sister.
    My oldest child does not have an older brother or sister.
    The moon does not have a moon.
    The moon is not made of green cheese.
    Corgis are not cats.

    No doubt you'll apply your brilliant logic skills to destroying the proof
    below, too, eh?

    > But FYI,
    > there isn't.


    Wow. You got a double whammy in the stupidity stakes. Linux makes you
    fucking stupid. Atheism makes you fucking stupid.

    > Just trying to save you the trouble...


    Don't forget, "ghawd" = omnipotent metaphysical X.

    Definition 1: X is ghawd-like iff X has as essential propertie­s those and
    only those properties which are positive.

    Definition 2: A is an essence of X iff for every property B,­ X has B
    necessarily iff A entails B.

    Definition 3: X necessarily exists iff every essence of X is­ necessarily
    exemplified.

    Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not­ positive.

    Axiom 2: Any property entailed by, i.e., strictly implied ­by, a positive
    property is positive.

    Axiom 3: The property of being ghawd-like is positive.

    Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily p­ositive.

    Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.

    Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being ne­cessarily P is
    positive.

    Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent,­ i.e.,
    possibly exemplified.

    Corollary 1: The property of being ghawd-like is consistent.

    Theorem 2: If something is ghawd-like, then the property of be­ing
    ghawd-like is an essence of that thing.

    Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being ghawd-like is ex­emplified.

    Your turn. Alternatively you can do a "Governor Swill" and declare a
    definition or something to be false therefore it's all false without
    actually doing anything other than declaring falsehood.
    Ely Mendelson, Feb 4, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Hunter
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    754
    Cheesypeas
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,335
    Bun Mui
    Jun 18, 2004
  3. Nozza

    DVD-R & DVD-RW & DVD+R & DVD+RW DVD-WTF

    Nozza, Dec 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,815
    Nozza
    Dec 2, 2004
  4. Hunter
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,053
    Cheesypeas
    Aug 30, 2003
  5. mozart

    lettori DVD video per DVD-R e DVD+R

    mozart, Sep 15, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    mozart
    Sep 15, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page