On 10/20/2013 12:04 AM, Nam Nguyen wrote: > > If you don't confirm, as you both haven't, then don't be a pathetic > liar citing "available"-excuse here: you've never confirmed so I > couldn't know if you didn't understand the definition, let alone > knowing "available" would stand in the way of your understanding > my definition. > > If you and Peter didn't understand my definition because of the > word "available", _why the hell didn't your guys simply answer_ > _my request_ with something like "No, I don't understand your > definition. Would you elaborate more"? >
Because both Peter and I are aware that there are specific logics which address words like "impossible" and "know".
We have explained that to you repeatedly at the expense of our own time, only to be ignored and insulted.
Since you seem to enjoy an impenetrable constitution with regard to any ability to comprehend these facts, I have moved on to the word "available". I have gone back to the same questions that I had been asking before. There had been no need to worry about your definition because it has no substance. Moreover, asking you to elaborate on anything only leads to questions being responded to with questions and other evasive techniques.
It is you who do not understand your own words in the context of established views. And, you refuse to pursue any strategy of adjustment to ameliorate the situation.