Re: Lets get physical
Date: 17 Jun 2006 05:28:49 -0700
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> Cimode wrote:
> > It's Cimode ...
> Trust me, it's /Commode/.
> > Of course the non responsiveness just proves my point..
> > It is not that you DON'T answer...It's just that you CAN'T
> > and that pisses you off to the point that you have nothing
> > left but insults and buzz expression to defend your full
> > scale ignorance !!! I rest my case...
> LMAO. I don't answer what? I haven't participated in the
> technical part of this thread for 12 days.
Yes that's says a lot about your apitude to bring relevant subjects...You'd rather insult people than anything else...
I posted one
> question at that time and couldn't make any sense out of
> your answer nor could I make sense of your other postings.
Of course, you are so mentally impaired that you CAN'T make sense of simple sentences...Duhh
> Thus, either I don't have the knowledge needed to understand
(notice I have no trouble admitting this possibility, What a hyppocrisy!!!
Of course you don't have it..It is obvious and typical from somebody who judges on belief rather than reasonning... If you had any understanding of what RM is there would be no argument between use...But instead of admitting you directly shoot at people on basis of prepackaged disqualiying ideas...
You have no clue about RM and you thrust SQL garbage to make some sense out of it...
> and it doesn't come close to "pissing me off" and it seems
> even the experts are having trouble communicating with you),
WRONG some people made sense right away about the right issues in threads and I had interesting exchanges with them... What *Experts* ?
The fact you call people like BB or JM Davitt *Experts* people who confuse a relvar and a relvar projection...People who state blanfully (JM Davitt) that a it is not possible to make an arhythmetic operation between two relvalues unless the relation are of same type are nothing but ignorants of RM concepts...People like BB who redefine the meaning of what an mathematical Axiom is claiming it is a boolean value are not experts...Experts do not run away or insult people when challenged whith sound proof and reasonning...
Maybe Experts of Bulshiteness
> or you are a crank. Either way, I saw no need to participate
> further in the /technical/ conversion. I did see a need to
> help expose a possible crank.
So you team up..If you had half a brain you would put everything in doubt read post and make up your own mind about tehcnical posts I made...Instead, you jump right away to scarewitch hunting....And you consider yourself an Expert? Right? LOL...
Again don't you know how to use anything else than prepackaged words to describe situations...Is your vocabulary so limited that you need people to think for you...?
> Face it. You gave a knee-jerk response to a post and had no
> idea who you were responding to.
I am responding to you...
You thought you were
> responding to JMD or similar. And you can't even admit that
> minor mistake (a crank attribute by the way).
So I would admit a mistake just to make you feel more secure about your feeble mind...What and idiot...
> -- Keith --
Received on Sat Jun 17 2006 - 14:28:49 CEST