Uirgil <email@example.com> writes: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > "LudovicoVan" <email@example.com> wrote: > > > "MoeBlee" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message > > news:email@example.com... > > > On Nov 1, 11:06 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > >> "MoeBlee" <modem...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > >> > On Nov 1, 8:24 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > >> >> Case closed? > > >> > > >> > My suggestion would be to study the argument in a more modern > > >> > treatment than Godel's orginal paper > > >> > > >> My suggestion is to read the original argument. > > >> > > >> Case closed, at least for now. > > > > > > I'm not the one having the degree of trouble understanding it as you > > > are. > > > > Yet you are the one who couldn't prove his point. > > > > > Case open. > > > > You and co. are just a bunch of nut cases: another closed case. > > > > -LV > > Those who descend to ad hominems, as LV so regularly does, are > unconsciously revealing that they are in the wrong.
I thought it was those who so regularly resort to morphing that reveal that they know they are in the wrong? And in that regard, you must really be suffering, according to my (newly updated) killfile:
Phil -- Regarding TSA regulations: How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle? Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive, whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.