quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

be too tedious for me to cite and splain every single cause-and-effect

...and what did I say?

Since all I am arguing is that you can't support that statement strictly using textbooks and formal logic.

You just conceded my point loser-boy.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen you have to dismantle and destroy my statement number 2 before you can say loserboy loserboy

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen you have to

Show that the true profitis statement is unproven and that profitis can not support it.  Done.

Thanks for conceding my point loserboy.

[profitis]

@sarkeizen: 'show that the new profitis statement is unproven and that the true profitis statement isnt supported by it' undone you concede my whole argument loserboy :D:D

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen: 'show that the fake profitis statement is unproven and that the true profitis statement isnt supported by it'

You have posted no formal logical argument.  The True Profitis Statement - requires a formal argument because it states that an ordinary textbook(s) and logic are all that are required for it's proof.

If the fake profitis statement can be demonstrated with a formal logical argument reaching an identical conclusion to the True Profits Statement and ordinary textbooks then please show me where this was done.  However we all know it has not been done which means either...

The fake profitis statement is:
a) Not equivalent to the True Profitis Statement
b) and/or Unproven and unsupported.

QED Loser.   Your ability to understand logic is about as bad as Philips