quentron.com

[profitis]

lol @sarkeizen.who are you trying to kid?yourself? Now go back to my last statement and read it, carefully this time ne?wink-wink ;-)

[sarkeizen]

lol @sarkeizen.who are you trying to kid?

I've laid the logic out pretty plain.  All you are doing is putting your fingers in your ears.

i) The True profitis statement must be supported purely by formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks.
ii) The True profitis statement has not been supported by formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks.
iii) Any statement claiming to be equivalent to the True profitis statement must by i) contain a formal argument and cites from ordinary textbooks and nothing else.
iv) Any statement claiming to be equivalent to the True profitis statement must by ii) be unsupported.

Sorry, logic wins, profitis the absolute moron...loses.

But please feel free to continue pretending as if you have some kind of argument (which of course you won't disclose)

[MarkE]

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

Why do you choose to exemplify Dunning-Kruger in action?

[profitis]

yawn @sarkeizen you and mark E are boring.look,either you guys attack my last vehemently destructive statement headon or put a raincheck on repetitive garbage that realy doesnt even scratch my statement one iota.now inject some useful attacks into this conversation because im beginning to agree with our old friend mr tim123,its getting boring  

[profitis]

who,s kruger @mark E?