It is not "how things really are". It
is "which word sequences are good ones".
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
It is not "how things really are".
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
So, yes, it IS an optimization problem
Unintelligent humans build bad maps, as
demonstrated by many posters to this
discussion group.
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms of
the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics (for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
(because evolution made sur they do)
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms of
the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics (for
instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Le 28/10/2024 à 16:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that they
are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine language"
in your brains.
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 13:05, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
It's an optimization problem with no
one-and-unique solution.
So, yes, it IS an optimization problem
It is.
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
Unintelligent humans build bad maps, as
demonstrated by many posters to this
discussion group.
It absolutely is. Even worse, as they are
too stupid to discuss -
they're just spitting and slandering their
opposition, just like you.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:21:16 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 13:05, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!) Wozniak goes nuts again!
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map
a plan, a portrayal.
plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"
Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning.
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
There is no such thing as "exact science."
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 17:14, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 16:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that they
are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine language"
in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism.
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Le 28/10/2024 à 18:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 17:14, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 16:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms
of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics
(for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that
they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine
language" in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as "decompiled" by
humans from their own introspection.
And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
Sure. Krivine makes fun of physicists looking for the "theory
of everything" or "the language of God".
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism.
I do think so too. But I'm marxist :-)
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
You seem to have decided at some point in your life that everyone
on Earth were producing non-sense except you
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 21:05, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 18:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 17:14, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 16:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms >>>>>> of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics >>>>>> (for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that
they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine
language" in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as "decompiled" by
humans from their own introspection.
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
Introspection? Of - what? Apart of a human brain
nothing deals with words, neither mathematical
way nor any other way.
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 21:05, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 18:29, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 17:14, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 16:46, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 15:07, Python pisze:
Le 28/10/2024 à 13:05, [email protected] (gharnagel) a écrit :
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 7:10:30 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
It is not "how things really are".
I agree.
It is "which word sequences are good ones".
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
If "word sequences that are good ones" means that de-compiled forms >>>>>> of the programs we have in our brains i.e. logic, maths and physics >>>>>> (for instance) are matching the actual programs that are correct
But there is no one-and-unique "correct".
There are just local optimums, and they're
floating (what is good now doesn't have to be
good in 100 years).
We could agree on that. Rather than local optimums I would say that
they are more complete "High level" implementations of the "machine
language" in your brains.
Bigger and more powerful software doesn't mean
"more complete". It's just bigger and more
powerful.
Krivine (and his team) views are not about software per se.
it is an analogy between programs in our brains (low level
"programmed" by evolution) and logic/math/physics as "decompiled" by
humans from their own introspection.
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
Introspection? Of - what? Apart of a human brain
nothing deals with words, neither mathematical
way nor any other way.
And so is our knowledge - compared
to the knowledge of our ancestors. There is
no "complete" state it's targetting.
Sure. Krivine makes fun of physicists looking for the "theory
of everything" or "the language of God".
(because evolution made sur they do)
In some centuries [SR] will be
only remembered as an antipattern of "how
and why you should never make a scientific
theory or any description of anything".
Your mistake is to deny that SR, as well as NM, are fitting very well
with this line of thinking.
So is marxism-leninism.
I do think so too. But I'm marxist :-)
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
That's how the DK effect works.
You seem to have decided at some point in your life that everyone
on Earth were producing non-sense except you
What you're projecting at me is exactly what The
Shit has taught yourself and your fellow idiots.
But, no, the followers of The Shit are no way
"everyone except me".
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
Le 28/10/2024 à 22:09, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
So, there is no reason to care about their views.
A question Wozniak: have you *ever once* cared the views of anyone else
but *you*?
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell
are you talking about ?
So Humanity is a plot against Maciej Wozniak ? LOL!!!
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 18:11, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:21:16 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 13:05, gharnagel pisze:
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!) Wozniak goes nuts again!
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map
a plan, a portrayal.
plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"
Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning.
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Well, exact science was never good
at this kind of problems.
There is no such thing as "exact science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:48:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 18:11, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:21:16 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 13:05, gharnagel pisze:
I disagree. Humans build maps of reality.
They're called scientific theories.
Maps? Harrie, poor idiot, maps are
drawings. Scientific theories are
descriptions; they're word sequences.
(sigh!) Wozniak goes nuts again!
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/map
a plan, a portrayal.
plan: "scheme, design, way of doing things, idea"
Wozniak seems to have trouble with understanding
that words have a range of meaning.
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Since "plan" is in the range of words for "map"
and a plan is more than a drawing, Wozniak isn't
making any sense, as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
Wozniak is conflating "exact" as an adjective
with "exact_science" as a noun
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 13:08, gharnagel pisze:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:48:25 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
Rather, Harnagel seems to have a problem
with understanding that the range of
meaning for "plan" is different than the
range of meaning for "map".
Since "plan" is in the range of words for "map"
and a plan is more than a drawing, Wozniak isn't
making any sense, as usual.
Harnagel's "logic" sucks, as usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_sciences
Wozniak is conflating "exact" as an adjective
with "exact_science" as a noun
No, Harnagel is lying, as usual.
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell
are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the Hell
are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 14:10, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Le 29/10/2024 à 16:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 14:10, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 16:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 14:10, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again.
Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the
Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Le 29/10/2024 à 17:27, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 16:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 14:10, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :Still -
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again. >>>>>>>>> Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the >>>>>>> Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive >>>>
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.
I was kind enough to
Le 29/10/2024 à 17:27, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 16:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 14:10, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :Still -
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again. >>>>>>>>> Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What the >>>>>>> Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very impressive >>>>
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.
I was kind enough to point you to some works that may be in your line of reasoning, if ever you had one.
You don't care, you won't check, you'll continue to post stupid rants every single early morning on Usenet until you'll die. With zero effect but boring people.
This is your project in life. I wonder how it is possible to act that way. But I
don't really care.
Le 29/10/2024 à 20:49, Python a écrit :
Le 29/10/2024 à 17:27, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 16:56, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 16:22, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 29.10.2024 o 14:10, Python pisze:
Le 29/10/2024 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 28.10.2024 o 22:41, Python pisze:
At least - as long as
its enthusiasts are evaluating that. But none
of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together.
Then you're going to abuse and off-track idiotic rant, again. >>>>>>>>>> Preventing any kind of communication with others.
It's for sure nothing but some idiotic rant to
suggest that your bunch of idiots doesn't know
everythibg about everything.
For sure, suggesting there is something you don't
know - immediately prevents any kind of communication
with you.
You didn't suggest that there is something I don't know. What
the Hell are you talking about ?
"But none of your idiot gurus had any real knowledge
about the process of putting words together".
That's the Hell what I'm talking about.
That's what's driving you [...] mad.
Not quite. Your ability to "put words together" is not very
impressive
Still -
Certain. Glad that we agree on that.
none of [physicists] had any
real knowledge about the process.
This is your opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Of course it is; you're such an idiot.
Why would they do? Is "putting words
together" a physical process?
Listen Maciej: you do not deserve any answer given your abusive conduct.
I was kind enough to point you to some works that may be in your line
of reasoning, if ever you had one.
You don't care, you won't check, you'll continue to post stupid rants
every single early morning on Usenet until you'll die. With zero
effect but boring people.
This is your project in life. I wonder how it is possible to act that
way. But I don't really care.
Now reaction. How come? :-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 147:15:06 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,529 |