> On 27/01/2013 9:33 PM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> Nam Nguyen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> >>> Ok. So you seem to be saying that (unlike the lone Nam Nguyen) >>> everyone should not think that it's impossible to know the truth >>> value of cGC since "its truth value might be discovered tomorrow", >>> according to your knowledge about mathematical logic. >> >>> But, A) what's the technical definition of "might be discovered >>> tomorrow"? "Tomorrow" relative to which side of the International >>> Date line? The Australia side? or the US side? And B) what happens >>> if before "tomorrow" has arrived, "today" somebody would discover >>> the truth value of cGC, rendering "might be discovered tomorrow" >>> _meaningless_ ? >> >> Congratulations on two of the dumbest points ever made on sci.math. >> Man, that's something. > > You missed the point; and that was a _right response_ to someone > else's comment on the issue of the possible impossibility > to know the truth value of cGC.
Yeah, I'm sure that's absolutely right.
I miss a *lot* of your points, actually.
-- Jesse F. Hughes "You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts. You are putting your stupidity on wide display." -- James S. Harris knows about wide displays of stupidity.