Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> 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

No hypocrisy at all LIAR... You can't get by pretending to
be stupid enough to get the term {INFINITELY Recursive}
confused with the term {Recursive Specification} this was
ONLY a deceitful attempt to discredit my position...

The aspect of BOTH the Liar Paradox, and Godel's
Incompleteness that makes them both invalid statements
is not the RECURSIVE nature of their formation, but,
that this recursive nature is INFINITE...   I used the
term INFINITE RECURSION at least a half dozen
times, there is NO EXCUSE for you to twist these
words...

>
> 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.
>

You are a LIAR, imagine that, someone with such low self-esteem, that
they even choose to cheat at conversation...  I bet you cheat at cards
and checkers too.