After reading this I'm humbly waving the white flag. I realise that if I ever go into a fight with you I'd be better off fighting you with my (nonexisting) Highland Pipes.
To be honest: When writing "got you", I knew better ;-) I _knew_ you would come over me with a ton of clever arguments. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14. mars 2006 20:09 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PESO - Morning coffee > > On 3/14/06, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Smart ass ex lawyer ;-) > > I've never made any claims to any intelligence levels. I can > certainly be an ass, though. <g> > > > Ok, you'll have it your way. > > I rarely do. This will be a treat! > > > > > First argument: Did I claim n'existe pais? No, I said I _barely_ exist, > at > > morning. > > I understand that. My point wasn't that you didn't exist, simply that > existence is an "on-off" type of thing. Either you do or you don't. > You can't "barely" exist. Even subatomic particles such as muons > whose independent existence is measured in millionths of a second, do > indeed fully exist for those brief periods of time. So even if you > feel sub-human before your first cup of coffee in the morning, it > can't be said that you are ever anything other than a fully existing > being. > > > Second argument: Admitting to exist, does that make me feel? Your > argument > > is similar to the logic of a character by the famous Danish writer > Ludvik > > Holberg. He proved that a person was a stone by saying: Can a stone fly? > No. > > Can you fly? No. Thereby are you a stone. > > That, of course is just silly. Amusing, but silly. I won't grace it > with a rebuttal... > > > > > Third argument: It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that you Frank are > not > > a living person, but a computer generated shit chat'er. Thereby are you > not > > entitled to make a valid argument. > > The validity of any argument has nothing to do with the nature of the > person or thing that generated the argument. A statement is right or > wrong in and of itself, and its correctness is quite independent of > it's author. > > However, I can't blame anyone for playing the odds and considering the > source as part of their decision-making process in deciding whether a > statement is right or wrong. You played the odds, but you lost. > <vbg> > > > > > Got you, and it felt gooood. > > You didn't actually get me, but if it made you feel goooooood, then > I'm happy, too. <g> > > > > BTW. Your post amused me. > > Then I consider my post a success. > > cheers, > frank > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson >
