Posts to this thread should have no qualities whatsoever.
Which may mean it remains blank.
And given the number of dobies, that may not be a bad thing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Let it go. Your opinion means jack to me. That doesn't mean you've never said anything intelligent here, but I was actually already planning to rein it in. I was still interested in pursuing my discussion with rivka, but that was about it. And guess what? That theory Lisa posted was just insane. It's also a giant pet peeve of mine when people start messing around with the theory of Solar System formation. Giant, because I enjoy geology and all things related, like planet and star formation. We have a perfectly good theory of solar system formation. It needs some honing. It, however, is the baby, not the bathwater.
I still posit that it's much easier to see the truth about solar system formation than about nutrition. Degreed scientists argue over whether or not vegetarianism is the healthiest option. There are plenty of intelligent folks on both sides of that debate. I don't see many degreed scientists arguing on the side of Lisa's theory. I'm just saying, I'm tired of being called a kook here. It's not really accurate. I'm eccentric, and I'm gullible about many things, but I see the bullshit in stupid religious and scientific theories from a mile away. That's me. But whatever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am riding on this high quality bandwagon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
n/t
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
BREAKING NEWS: Dagonee offers ASCII art beer to underage posters!!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Posts to this thread should have no qualities whatsoever.
There can no posts that have no qualities whatsoever. Consider the simple proof below.
Suppose we arrange all posts in the order in which they were posted. Clearly the first would have the interesting quality of being first. If there are qualityless posts, As we continue arranging the posts in order, we would eventually come upon the first qualityless post, but this in and of itself would be a remarkable quality. Ergo, there can be no qualityless posts.
This thread seriously misrepresents itself.
[ November 04, 2008, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, but would the nth qualityless post be remarkable? I submit, only to the easily amused. Ergo, the proof fails, as jatraqueros are a notoriously jaded bunch.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Yes, but would the nth qualityless post be remarkable? I submit, only to the easily amused. Ergo, the proof fails, as jatraqueros are a notoriously jaded bunch.
But if there can never be a first qualityless post, then you can't get an nth qualityless post.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Rabbit, you yourself submitted there is a 1st qualityless post via an ordering schema, and surely there are other such orders.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I postulated that if there were qualityless posts, there would have to be a first qualityless post. Since I have proven than a first post can not exist, no qualityless posts are possible.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You win again, Rabbity!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :