Obviously you've got no sense of humour, And yes I'm unique and special, everybody is in their own way, so are snowflakes, daisies , fingerprints and so on. You're certainly part of a typical type and by your own label a solipsist. You seem to imagine sneering makes friends.Has it occurred to you that you may misunderstand the meaning of the message? You do it quite consistently. ORN wrote You're unique, to a previous remark of mine that I was not unique and I replied in kind. just like someone saying "you're a champion fellow." BESIDES< BESIDES< BESIDES, somebody said it to me. I DID NOT SAY IT ABOUT MYSELF AS YOU FALSELY IMAGINE. So far you have not managed to say a good word to me or about me, charming, I love you too, somewhere on an ice floe among penquins.
adrian einseele wrote: > Others I do not... you, after all you are sooo special. I'm part of > the billions, you are unique, remember. > > > On Oct 5, 1:31 pm, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you wish to take that as a personal insult I cannot stop you. But it eems >> to be ok for you >> to insult others. >> >> adrian. >> >> einseele wrote: >>> Hello Neil >>> When someone like adrian writes (Not being a common joke, I presume): >>> "HAHA, One friend reckons I'm one in 2 billion. He's competent enough >>> to judge so." >>> ... all discussions end, at least to me. Because the conversation is >>> not aimed to the apparent subject, namely physics, or whathever; but >>> to an intention not stated on the supposed piece of talk. >>> He said that in another thread to ornamentalmind, if I'm not wrong >>> (sorry orn, if you weren't part). >>> Probably ornament. did a positive comment to adrian, and he got that >>> answer were we can read: >>> "HAHA, One friend reckons I'm one in 2 billion. He's competent enough >>> to judge so." >>> Meaning: >>> HAHA (laughing in loud voice), you are a poor thing among billions >>> (anyone else reading his/her post), because I'm special (ornament >>> and ... I are idiots), One friend (not A friend) reckons (surrendered >>> to the revealed truth)... Being the friend someone competent "enough" >>> See the perfect movement to say: "Hey everybody there, you are >>> obviously almost nothing compared to me, I like ornamentalmind anyway >>> (sorry orn. again if you were not the case) and anyone else who >>> admires me, the special being among billions, even my idiot friend >>> reckons that, well he/she is competent enough... >>> This is the intention beneath the discussion. Personally gives me >>> repugnance, I wanted to follow your points, but as usual, that is not >>> possible as we surely will receive that kind of aggression. Besides I >>> frankly prefer to be among many others, instead of sharing the table >>> with adolf adrian >>> regards >>> On Oct 4, 11:47 pm, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> THe LHC has not yet performed the experiments with lead nuclei that >>>> caused some to fret about black holes. There are plenty of arguments >>>> around that fall into trivialisation.Dialetheism should be clearly >>>> distinguished from trivialism. This is the view that all >>>> contradictions are true (and hence, assuming that a conjunction >>>> entails its conjuncts, it is also the view that everything is true). >>>> Though a trivialist must be a dialetheist, the converse is not the >>>> case: a dialetheist typically claims that some (and, usually, very >>>> specific) sentences are dialetheias, not that all of them are. How one >>>> can do the former without being committed to the latter is one of the >>>> main topics in the dialetheic theory, since trivialism is considered >>>> by most philosophers theoretically repugnant, if anything is. The >>>> standard solution for the dialetheist consists in subscribing to the >>>> view that entailment (deductively valid inference) is paraconsistent. >>>> Rigourous derivation is needed to avoid trivialisation, as I think >>>> Georges has just pointed out, or else, frankly, we can make anything >>>> mean what it does not and become trivial. >>>> On 3 Oct, 09:26, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> NOTE: It's a warning to non-physicists, who could be >>>>> muddled by this bullshit. >>>>> --- On Fri, 10/3/08, socratus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> .> Einstein’s formula E =mc^2 belong to behavior of micro >>>>>> particle >>>>>> ( light quanta/ electron). >>>>> According to Quantum physics the> energy >>>>>> ( force/ power) of body ( particle ) in the rest is not >>>>>> equals to >>>>>> zero, >>>>>> but equals E= mc^2. >>>>>> When E =mc^2 changes according to" The Law of >>>>>> conservation >>>>>> and transformation energy / mass " the body begin its >>>>>> moving. >>>>>> It is Potential force which changes in the Kinetic force >>>>>> and this >>>>>> power >>>>>> is hiding in the micro particle: light quanta/ electron. >>>>> =================== >>>>> G: >>>>> E=MC2 concerns Special Relativity and has been conceived >>>>> before Quantum Theory. I happen to know it, as I have >>>>> developed its rigorous derivation, which Einstein used >>>>> at the end of his life. >>>>> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/D_OUTLINE_OF_EINST... >>>>> It has nothing to do with >>>>> "behavior"(?) of any particles, especially with light >>>>> quanta, nor with "transformation energy / mass" and moving >>>>> bodies, nor with any Potential force which changes in the >>>>> Kinetic force(?), nor with any "power"(?) hiding(?) in >>>>> "light quanta/ electron". >>>>> BTW energy is not "( force/ power)" which they teach in >>>>> elementary high school classes. >>>>> E=MC2 states equivalence of mass and energy and that's >>>>> all. In practice when some nuclear transformation results >>>>> in decrease of mass, the difference transforms to EM >>>>> radiation, like in Hiroshima, or in radioactive >>>>> treatment of cancer. >>>>> Georges. >>>>> =================== > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
