Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>Please Read this whole thing through before responding.

I always do.  I must.  I have to wait awhile to wipe the tears of laughter from 
my eyes before I can respond at all.  ;)

 *>>>>You forget.  You don't like recursive specifications.  :D That
 *>invalidates everything!  <<<

 *>This is the PROOF of your deceit. 

Hmmm... I don't recall this comment of mine in THIS branch of the thread.  As I 
recall, it was in regards to your comment that Property was a recursive 
definition in the law.  I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your position when you 
accept such a statement as this here, but not in our other debate with regards to 
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.  ;)

 *>I NEVER said that I don't like recursive specifications, you are LYING 
 *>about this. 

You certain have given me cause to believe to the contrary.  You do not accept 
their use in formal mathematical systems and proofs, but _DO_ for law.

 *>This is no form of honest mistake, either, its ONLY an fully intentional LIE
 *>!!!

!!!  Oh Really?  !!!  Get a grip, dude.  I'm not going to bother to retrieve the 
evidence supporting my claim from your previous posts.  That's just more work 
that you'll ignore.  If others wish to do so, they are archived.

 *>With many people I could call this an unintentional mistake, they don't have
 *>the intelligence and education to avoid errors such as this. 

Translation:  They aren't me.

 *>In fact with these people, if I used the word recursive at all, they would
 *>not even be able to remember it from one second to the next... They would
 *>have No Idea what this word means, and not even be able to mistake it for
 *>another word that sounds similar, not knowing any of these words either.

I'd sort of gathered that you hung out with dullards.  I'm sure it's been 
frustrating for you to find that your old tried and true "bag o' tricks" of 
assertion spiced with misused terminology didn't work here.

Just remember, even the smartest Con Artist runs across someone who's on to him 
eventually.  ;)

 *>In you case we have quite the opposite, you did not err, as an honest
 *>mistake, a man of your intelligence and education ONLY makes these kinds of
 *>"errors" with full intention to deceive...

Nope.  In my case it was to puncture the pretensions of a bombastic fool spouting 
absurdities.  Truth makes the finest needle.  ;)

 *>I did not say that I do not like recursive specifications. 

I'd say that if you find them unacceptable, that that is synonymous with "not 
liking".

 *>I said that the INFINITELY RECURSIVE nature of both the Liar Paradox,

Which we demonstrated was grammatical in both it's direct and indirect forms.

 *>and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, invalidates that they are statements...  

Uh... You're selective memory just snapped into place and totally forgot what 
Matthew first pointed out to you, and in which I elaborated.  Godel's statement 
isn't an infinitely recursive statement.

And they ARE grammatical.  They just don't fit your elusive definition of what a 
statement is.  Guess you forgot that too.

 *>You must have a very low sense of self-esteem to stoop so low as to CHEAT at
 *>conversation.... 

This from the person who invents terms?  Tortures definitions to suit his needs?  
Claims to possess perfect reasoning and infallibility?

It's obvious that you have a very HIGH sense of self-esteem.  I just happen to 
feel that self-esteem should be based on reality.  ;)

 *>There is no actual basis for this low self-esteem, 

Ah.. Don't tell me.  You're an infallible psychiatrist?  ;)

 *>you are both quite intelligent and educated...

You'll find that even csa2 has quite a few such folks.  Why you would think your 
wacky assertions would find fertile ground here, I don't know.

 *>Try to know this fact fully throughout your whole being... 

That's just it, Cooter.  You throw terms like "fully", "completely", "perfectly", 
"totally" around like they were candy.  

However educated I may be, I know that I know far less than exists out there.  I 
have a feeling for my scope of ignorance.  It is vast.

When someone likes you pops up claiming complete knowledge, I know that I've 
found the perfect closed minded buffoon to taunt.  And I do.  ;)

 *>You are a man of value...

So... If someone stole me, it would be theft?  ;)

Anyway, thanks for the warm fuzzy. I'll add them to the rest of my collection. ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat