quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

lol @sarkeizen.check your feeble attempts to derail the monster profitis statement!

Your fake statements are simply irrelevant.  No cite, no formal argument.  So no equivalency to the True Profitis Statement.

I get that your ability to understand logic is at the Philip Hardcastle level but try to think...see if you can reach the high-school level.

[MarkE]

@mark E..unless you destroy my statement..yes (-:

Then you are badly mistaken.

[profitis]

rubbish @sarkeizen.the latest profitis statement is so overpowering that you cant a)de-stabilize it b)dismantle it or c)bring a scientist onboard to quash it.it annihilates anything standing inbetween profitis statement 1 and a kelvin breach and to the contrary,makes the hardcastle proposal look a whole lot shinier and sparkly by default.

[sarkeizen]

rubbish @sarkeizen.the latest profitis statement is

i) Demonstrated to be not equivalent to the True Profits Statement or
ii) Demonstrated to be unsupported and/or unproven.

See if you assert i) is not true (that they are equivalent) then ii) automatically is true and if you assert ii) is not true (that it is supported) then i) is automatically not true.

It's all up there.  You can read it for yourself.  Just telling yourself over and over again that you think you are right doesn't actually make you any less wrong.

Like I said try moving up from the Philip Hardcastle School of Logic to something actually taught somewhere.

[profitis]

yawn @mark E.my statement still stands.getting taller by the second..