Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"GW" with a Super-T tattooed on his boney chest:
tell me what is the status on the twisti 'problem'? The monkey has returned on your back! Hyuk! he is a waste and he uses his powerful radio systems to cuss LOL,,,,,,Only Lelnad KC8LDO and Hall N3CVJ and Gillinad N7VCF attempt to bring forward such malicious and intentional lies against those that have shown them for what they were. Congratulations on being forced underground on a regular basis. I;ts funny to watch you run, so. and agitate on the freebands....he is also a extra class hammie and he must be stopped LOL.. you are, and will always be an impotent that was driven underground by your own hand. Sucks to be on the outside looking in, like havnig your face pressed up against a glass window, slobbering over ice cream that you are not permitted to taste.....HAWHAWHAW! the same way AKC 5th column agents in cali , informed the fcc about the actions of the bigbamboo , another illegal operations ham radio operator, who by the way was busted for his illegal actions and is now neutered as we speak......... You've made a jackass of yourself with such hysterical rants for years. You have been relegated to the fossil file, and are only taken out to be played with at whim,,,,now,,say soething funny for the masses,,,er,,,,myself. The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: snip egocentric rant The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong ......and here we have yet another warped interpretation of logic from TwistyDave..... What you are trying to distort is the definition of an inductive argument, which goes something like: "The probability of a statement being true increases with each failed attempt to prove it is not true." But that doesn't apply to you since an inductive argument is only valid as long as nobody succeeds in proving the statement false. Don't be discouraged, Dave, since inductive logic -does- apply to you, in the same manner that it applies to everyone else whose statements has been proven false time and time again -- there is a high probability that anything you say will be false. So your definition would have been more correctly stated, "The likelihood of one individual being correct decreases in direct proportion to the frequency with which others succeed in proving him wrong." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|