PH: What is Your Philosophical Foundation?

[attofishpi]

AGE: C'mon, you gotta love total wack-jobs like Skepdick?

Clearly you have proved that you know that he is right about knowing you were not.

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation.

Which, in a sense, MEANS that absolutely EVERY thing I say IS right.

Yes, yes it does to whoever the being is that you are channelling from constellation Doopid.

[Age]

AGE: C'mon, you gotta love total wack-jobs like Skepdick?

Clearly you have proved that you know that he is right about knowing you were not.

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation.

It was "skepdick's" so-called "logic" where the CLAIM LIES.

Which, in a sense, MEANS that absolutely EVERY thing I say IS right.

Yes, yes it does to whoever the being is that you are channelling from constellation Doopid.

What are you on about here now?

It was "SKEPDICK" who was the ONE who wrote:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to have refuted you."

Which OBVIOUSLY MEANS that NO matter what I or ANY one else SAYS, there is NOT ANY one who could refute what was said.

If you find this TOTALLY IRRATIONAL ILLOGICAL BOLLOCKS, then SPEAK TO "skepdick" about 'it'.

I NEVER made the CLAIM. I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING just how TOTALLY IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL BOLLOCKS that CLAIM REALLY IS.

[Peter Holmes]

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

[attofishpi]

AGE: C'mon, you gotta love total wack-jobs like Skepdick?

Clearly you have proved that you know that he is right about knowing you were not.

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation. **OK YES, I SHOULD HAVE ADDED SUCH THAT AGE WOULD AGREE TO BEING REFUTED!!!**

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

Nutjob? Well then, fuckturd.
My point was as per quote above, directed at Age:- Can AGE be refuted when AGE does not talk logically and rationally such that AGE will agree that he is wrong?

Happy Father's day? I bet your kids regret you never aborted them.

[Peter Holmes]

AGE: C'mon, you gotta love total wack-jobs like Skepdick?

Clearly you have proved that you know that he is right about knowing you were not.

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation. **OK YES, I SHOULD HAVE ADDED SUCH THAT AGE WOULD AGREE TO BEING REFUTED!!!**

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

Nutjob? Well then, fuckturd.
My point was as per quote above, directed at Age:- Can AGE be refuted when AGE does not talk logically and rationally such that AGE will agree that he is wrong?

Happy Father's day? I bet your kids regret you never aborted them.

I say. Steady on. Wasn't referring to you. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I think. The dick-troll is Skepdick.

[Age]

AGE: C'mon, you gotta love total wack-jobs like Skepdick?

Clearly you have proved that you know that he is right about knowing you were not.

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation. **OK YES, I SHOULD HAVE ADDED SUCH THAT AGE WOULD AGREE TO BEING REFUTED!!!**

If ANY one REFUTES ANY thing I SAY, then so be it. I would be the FIRST ONE to AGREE WITH and ACCEPT this. As I HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY.

If, and WHEN, I say ANY absolutely thing False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, then I WANT TO be the FIRST ONE who IS INFORMED of this.

I LOVE being SHOWN what is Truly Right AND Correct. That way I can CHANGE, and CHANGE the WAY I LOOK AT and SEE things to what is MORE True, Right, AND Correct.

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

Nutjob? Well then, fuckturd.

I THOUGHT "peter holmes" was referring to 'me' as the "nutjob" here.

WHY do SO MANY Wrong ASSUMPTIONS get made here, in this forum?

My point was as per quote above, directed at Age:- Can AGE be refuted when AGE does not talk logically and rationally such that AGE will agree that he is wrong?

I was "agreeing" that "I am wrong" to SHOW and PROVE just how ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL "skepdick's" CLAIM IS here.

It was "skepdick" WHO CLAIMED that absolutely NOTHING ANY one says can be refuted.

"skepdick" then 'tried to' twist what I was SAYING and SHOWING around, in attempt to make me look STUPID, so I just continued on talking in a way that AGREED with "skepdick's" CLAIM here, which ACTUALLY REVEALLED just how ABSURD and RIDICULOUS "skepdick's" CLAIM REALLY WAS and IS.

[attofishpi]

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation. **OK YES, I SHOULD HAVE ADDED SUCH THAT AGE WOULD AGREE TO BEING REFUTED!!!**

If ANY one REFUTES ANY thing I SAY, then so be it. I would be the FIRST ONE to AGREE WITH and ACCEPT this. As I HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY.

If, and WHEN, I say ANY absolutely thing False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, then I WANT TO be the FIRST ONE who IS INFORMED of this.

I LOVE being SHOWN what is Truly Right AND Correct. That way I can CHANGE, and CHANGE the WAY I LOOK AT and SEE things to what is MORE True, Right, AND Correct.

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

Nutjob? Well then, fuckturd.

I THOUGHT "peter holmes" was referring to 'me' as the "nutjob" here.

WHY do SO MANY Wrong ASSUMPTIONS get made here, in this forum?

My point was as per quote above, directed at Age:- Can AGE be refuted when AGE does not talk logically and rationally such that AGE will agree that he is wrong?

I was "agreeing" that "I am wrong" to SHOW and PROVE just how ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL "skepdick's" CLAIM IS here.

It was "skepdick" WHO CLAIMED that absolutely NOTHING ANY one says can be refuted.

"skepdick" then 'tried to' twist what I was SAYING and SHOWING around, in attempt to make me look STUPID, so I just continued on talking in a way that AGREED with "skepdick's" CLAIM here, which ACTUALLY REVEALLED just how ABSURD and RIDICULOUS "skepdick's" CLAIM REALLY WAS and IS.

Ok, Age, turns out I am wrong and you are right. Peter Holmes was referring to use as a nutjob, and the other was Skepdick, not sure how I got off the hook with all the esoterical sage stuff I bang on about, but maybe another day.

[attofishpi]

According to "skepdick" "logic", there is absolutely NOTHING I say that could be REFUTED, by absolutely ANY one.

Well of, course since you are talking totally irrational illogical bollocks where someone that does talk using logic has no way to provide any refutation. **OK YES, I SHOULD HAVE ADDED SUCH THAT AGE WOULD AGREE TO BEING REFUTED!!!**

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

Nutjob? Well then, fuckturd.
My point was as per quote above, directed at Age:- Can AGE be refuted when AGE does not talk logically and rationally such that AGE will agree that he is wrong?

Happy Father's day? I bet your kids regret you never aborted them.

I say. Steady on. Wasn't referring to you. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I think. The dick-troll is Skepdick.

Well, I do apologise Peter, I thought it was I that was at least one of the nutjobs. ..and I am sure your children are proud to have you as their father, as you will see by the quality of socks that they buy you for Fathers day.

[Age]

Unaccustomed as I am to siding with one nutjob against another, I'm with Age in this argument. Here's the dick-troll claim:

"The first principle of philosophy is nobody can refute anything you say. They can only believe to [sic] have refuted you."

This is false. And if we reject classical binary truth-value and therefore classical contradiction - which we can do - we can't then invoke them to make a rational truth-claim of any kind. We're just burbling incoherently in the dark, along with all the other furkling nutjobs and dick-trolls.

Happy father's day, one and all.

Nutjob? Well then, fuckturd.

Happy Father's day? I bet your kids regret you never aborted them.

Look at just HOW MUCH one Wrong ASSUMPTION can lead a person completely and utterly ASTRAY.

Would you have called "peter holmes" a "fucktard", and betted "peter holmes" that "peter holmes" kids, (if there are any), regreted that "peter holmes" NEVER aborted them, IF you had KNOWN that it was NOT you, and that it was in fact me, that was being referred to as a "nutjob" here?

[attofishpi]

*cant type larfing too muck*

[Peter Holmes]

Fwell. I wish to apologise to anyone whom I may have characterised as a nutjob, dick troll, fuckturd, etc. No excuse, but I put it down to intemperance and two glasses of a reasonably-priced father's day merlot, plus the disappointment of getting only one pair of socks from one of my four children. Honestly, why do we bother? And why did our parents bother with us?

[attofishpi]

Fwell. I wish to apologise to anyone whom I may have characterised as a nutjob, dick troll, fuckturd, etc. No excuse, but I put it down to intemperance and two glasses of a reasonably-priced father's day merlot, plus the disappointment of getting only one pair of socks from one of my four children. Honestly, why do we bother? And why did our parents bother with us?

It's OK Peter, at least you got a pair of socks. I can't get anything on Fathers day because I aborted mine. It was obvious by the age i forgot to wear a condom that everyone hated me, and the thought of having to raise more haters just added to what I thought was a well reasoned execution.

[Skepdick]

And what you say IS IRREFUTABLE, right?

Wrong.

It is refutable. To you.

[Skepdick]

Also, REMEMBER, that you can ONLY BELIEVE...

What do you mean?

I believe that I have no beliefs.

[Age]

And what you say IS IRREFUTABLE, right?

Wrong.

It is refutable. To you.

Okay, I will be more specific;

What you say is IRREFUTABLE, to 'you' "skepdick", right?

Oh, and by the way, NOT ALL of what you say is IRREFUTABLE, to me.

ONLY 'that', which is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, IS IRREFUTABLE, to me.