Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

You are just a LIAR...
Someone with such a low sense of self-esteem
that they even stoop to cheating at conversation...
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and you have
wasted yours...

I thought that I could eventually explain my
position clearly enough so that you would see
and understand. This goes against your direct
goal of refuting me. You want to refute me at
ALL costs, even to the extent of LYING...

A sentence that has an INFINITELY recursive
structure can never form a valid statement, because
it NEVER gets to the point... Its like you asking me
a question, and my "answer" is (always)
"Wait a minute, then I will tell you." Its not an
answer at all...

"If I say that I am lying." and this sentence is
not tied to anything else that I said, then it is
not a valid statement, because it is not about
anything...

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *> I have specifically quoted his lie in the last few posts in this same
>  *> sequence, the same sequence that you have been responding to.
>
> Heh... Perhaps I was premature in my congratulations to your recovery.  ;)
>
> Do you realize how pathetic you appear now, Cooter?
>
>  *> I said that the INFINITELY RECURSIVE nature of both Godel's Incompleteness
>  *> Theorem and the Liar Paradox, invalidates that they are statements.
>
> Duh... There's nothing infinitely recursive ABOUT Godel's Theorem, fool.
>
> Are you going to continue this LIE? ;)
>
> And there is nothing about an infinitely recursive statement that makes it any
> less a statement.
>
> Are you going to continue this LIE? ;)
>
>  *> Here is the LIAR'S restatement of this...
>
>  *> >>>You forget.  You don't like recursive specifications.  :D That
>  *> invalidates everything!  <<<
>
> Well, Simon caught you in your hypocrisy earlier with a recursive jab.  Odd that
> you should take this second one so hard.  ;)
>
>  *> My statement is not at all like his restatement of what I said.
>
> You're statements were generally confused and lacking in specifics.  You see, you
> never backed them up with anything but assertion.  That leaves you wide open for
> quite liberal interpretation of what you actually mean.  ;)
>
>  *> Since I made my word-for-word statement several times (about six), there is
>  *> no way that his fraudulent misstatement is unintentional...
>
> Ah... So.. You're going for the "Repeat a LIE often enough and it will become
> true" strategy?  ;)
>
>  *> This could be characterized as the Straw man Fallacy, except that did not
>  *> misunderstand what I said, he intentionally misrepresented what I said....
>
> All through this debate, I've had my doubts that you had a clue as to what you
> meant in the first place.  But it's been fun playing with you like a fish on a
> line.  ;)
>
>  *> Since you have been specifically commenting on this sequence, therefore you
>  *> have been following it, thus you are specifically accountable for
>  *> supporting a LIAR in his lies.
>
> We can add another word that Cooter has become infatuated with.  "Specifically".
> How cute.  Cooter is SO remarkably delusional.  ;)
>
>  *> What I am saying here is that to intentionally place yourself in the
>  *> position of supporting a LIAR in his LIES,
>
> Translation:  Fie on those who don't support the wisdumb of Pope Cooter "The
> Infallible". ;)
>
>  *> might get you on the wrong side at judgment day...
>
> Oh!  Now he's Judge Pope Cooter.  ;)
>
> Here's a clue, Cooter.  Every day is judgement day.  The Court has found you
> imbecilic.  ;)
>
>  *> You might (for this reason) be on the side of al those condemned...
>
> Apparently, you're already condemned, Cooter.  To perpetual stupidity. ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat