William wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote:

ZenIsWhen wrote:

"TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net> wrote

There is none, so why ask for it?

There is none - so why bellow the belief as though it were fact?

I didn't below belief. I asserted knowledge as a fact,
unquestioningly established, you illogical oaf.

Strange. Someone asserting knowledge, unquestioningly, as fact (ie
dispenses with logic) then questions someone else's logic.

That would be because logic is alien to you.

John Ings wrote:

On 2 Mar 2004 09:56:24 GMT, "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
wrote:

There is none, so why ask for it?

There is none - so why bellow the belief as though it were fact?

I didn't below belief. I asserted knowledge as a fact,
unquestioningly established, you illogical oaf.

You can't have knowledge without proof nitwit!

I most certainly can. Just because you don't have what it
takes (that would be at least one functioning brain cell)

to understand how or why it is so doesn't invalidate the
assertion one bit. In fact, you highlight your own
absurdity quite well.

Checkmate. You're officially an insensible moron.

Here is your free clue, not that you'll get it, but
still. BTW, how does it feel to be in the same class
of moron as SepticKKK/Navigator?

Navigator wrote:

Then what does the balderdash in question, "Knowledge need not be
demonstrated" mean, knucklehead?

Intense and valid argument doesn't seem to get through the
impervious rock that sits between the two tawdry
accoutrements of a cheap ***** that you are pleased to call
your ears,

so I will demonstrate your absurdity by way of
analogy.

An analogy, I will add, that is 100% fact. Let's
see if you can get the idea that way...

I know for a fact that the government of my country denies having
a particularly nasty weapon in its arsenal, yet I was party to the
designs, manufacture and deployment of the weapon in question to
our armed forces.

Since I am under oath and thus subject to the provisions of my
country's Official Secrets Act, "demonstrat[ing] any truth in that
knowledge", will likely subject me to a lengthy sojourn between
four brick walls at Her Majesty's pleasure. And that's a fact.

John Ings wrote:

On 2 Mar 2004 09:56:24 GMT, "TehGhodTrole" <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
wrote:

There is none, so why ask for it?

There is none - so why bellow the belief as though it were fact?

I didn't below belief. I asserted knowledge as a fact,
unquestioningly established, you illogical oaf.

You can't have knowledge without proof nitwit!

I most certainly can. Just because you don't have what it
takes (that would be at least one functioning brain cell)
to understand how or why it is so doesn't invalidate the
assertion one bit. In fact, you highlight your own
absurdity quite well.

Checkmate. You're officially an insensible moron.

Here is your free clue, not that you'll get it, but
still. BTW, how does it feel to be in the same class
of moron as SepticKKK/Navigator?

Navigator wrote:

Then what does the balderdash in question, "Knowledge need not be
demonstrated" mean, knucklehead?

Intense and valid argument doesn't seem to get through the
impervious rock that sits between the two tawdry
accoutrements of a cheap ***** that you are pleased to call
your ears, so I will demonstrate your absurdity by way of
analogy. An analogy, I will add, that is 100% fact. Let's
see if you can get the idea that way...

I know for a fact that the government of my country denies having
a particularly nasty weapon in its arsenal, yet I was party to the
designs, manufacture and deployment of the weapon in question to
our armed forces.

Since I am under oath and thus subject to the provisions of my
country's Official Secrets Act, "demonstrat[ing] any truth in that
knowledge", will likely subject me to a lengthy sojourn between
four brick walls at Her Majesty's pleasure. And that's a fact.

Your argument is invalid. In it's entirety.

There is none, so why ask for it?

There is none - so why bellow the belief as though it were fact?

I didn't below belief. I asserted knowledge as a fact,
unquestioningly established, you illogical oaf.

You can't have knowledge without proof nitwit!

I most certainly can.

Just because you don't have what it
takes (that would be at least one functioning brain cell)
to understand how or why it is so doesn't invalidate the
assertion one bit.

In fact, you highlight your own absurdity quite well.

Checkmate.

You're officially an insensible moron.

Your argument is invalid. In it's entirety.