quentron.com

[profitis]

@sarkeizen.apologies.you have laid down exactly zero formal textbook proof whatsoever to combat the overbearing presence of the..last profitis statement..

[sarkeizen]

@sarkeizen.apologies.you have laid down exactly zero formal textbook proof

My formal logical proof is has been posted several times now.  Do you need to see it again?  It demonstrates that the only statements you can make other than the True Profitis Statement are either not equivalent to it (and therefore irrelevant to the discussion) or provided with no cogent argument.

If you don't get it, just say so and I'll explain.   Loser.

[profitis]

we,re not interested in 'logical' proof @sarkeizen.we just want you to topple my 2nd statement.if you cant topple my 2nd statement then sorry,no luck on toppling my 1st statement by default.

[sarkeizen]

we,re not interested in 'logical' proof

Yes, logic is apparently not something that you have very much experience with.  I'm more than happy to step you through the proof.  I understand completely that your...inexperience...may be difficult for you to overcome. 

Still, logic says that you have not yet provided anything to refute.  Only words irrelevant to the True Profitis Statement and words that are equally unsupported.

[profitis]

no mr sarkeizen..you are to be badly,badly dissapointed if you think that my 2nd statement is irrelevant to my 1st statement.quit being lazy and show us that my textbook-worded statement is null and void then only can you prove scientificly to us that my casual-worded statement is null and void..