In article <email@example.com>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:19:57 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > >In article <email@example.com>, > > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:21:33 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> > > > >> > In any case, you cannot get your desired > >> > result without SOME assumption. > >> > >> Which assumption I demonstrate the truth of tautologically whereas > >> faith based math cannot demonstrate the truth of their assumptions > >> syllogistically. > > > >Zick again claims to have demonstrated what he has not demonstrated. > > And perhaps you'd care to demonstrate the truth of that assumption?
Zick's own statement above demostrates the claim.
Zick's lack of demonstration of any truths demonstrates itself. > > >That makes HIS claims faith based, or worse.