And for shits and giggles, here's my claim:
TRUE=TRUE
TRUE=TRUE
Eh.. That got proved wrong already. I'm not sure which page though...Sneaky.Russian wrote:
What about this one:
I always lie.
@Above, True isn't true if it's not certain so true isn't always true.
Last edited by NooBesT[FiN] (2007-02-21 05:01:01)
The most effective battle is fort by cuting the enemy's supply line. Thus losing minimal casualties.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
My penis is smaller then yours.
God exists.
Prove that worng
Prove that worng
The most effective way, the way which most likely loses you minimal casualties in that battle at least would be nuking themR3v4n wrote:
The most effective battle is fort by cuting the enemy's supply line. Thus losing minimal casualties.
Prove me wrong.
Thats not proof, that is supposing!DeathUnlimited wrote:
I will never know that for sure, they could have changed my mother's real child to cloned a boy of a hairy gayjkohlc wrote:
You are born from a female.
Martyn
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~kuhns/baby/ … ce2-bw.jpgChikyuu Shoujo Arujuna wrote:
you cant touch your elbow with your nose and make a photo as a prove at the same time
Day after Tomorrow is a movie.NooBesT[FiN] wrote:
Yesterday is two days before yesterday of day after tomorrow.
It has more protons. atomic numbers aren't really anything..k30dxedle wrote:
Carbon has a higher atomic number than hydrogen.
you can't. there is a "no man's land" between countries.SteikeTa wrote:
I can be in 2 countries at the same time (actually I can)
the fact that you think, isn't the reason you exist, so that claim isn't true.Zimmer wrote:
I think, therefore I am.
doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
Okay prove this wrong.
Two equilateral triangles are always similar.
Euclid>You
they were Neo-nazishenno13 wrote:
there was american nazis in new jersery
too little time. If i'd have too much, i'd update this thread much more often.hate&discontent wrote:
you have to much free time on your hands.
soalfa wrote:
pi = infinite, prove this
the value of pi hasn't been, nor will ever be fully calculated, so that claim is not true.Undetected_Killer wrote:
Pi is an irregular number.
What penis?Marlboroman82 wrote:
i have a small penis
pirana6 wrote:
God exists
This should be interesting...
God isn't something that "exists" god is not anyone. He as the ultimate ruler of the world lives in our minds. so god doesn't really existnamsdrawkcaB wrote:
God exists.
Prove that worng
You born for free. I didn't say "keeping yourself alive" would be free.Pernicious544 wrote:
The life that made yours had to have food, food costs money. To get said food they had to have energy from food before that food, water to drink and sleep to sustain. Water free in some places but it takes energy to get to those places which is from food that has to be bought. The life itself has to be created from another of which is sustained by food in which they pay for. Nothing if freeDeathUnlimited wrote:
The life itself is free.Pernicious544 wrote:
Nothing in life is free
then don't read this.Im_Dooomed wrote:
This thread is boring and of uninterest to me. You don't have to prove that wrong. Thats just FACT (To me, im sure you can say, "But its not fact to others.") Wow that would be deep. It's my opinion.
Come to think of it, you CANT prove what I said wrong. You can only give your opinion of the matter like you have done with probably 70% of these posts from other people.
Maybe ya'll havent noticed, but he proves you wrong based on your miswording of a phrase, or based on actual fact because you made a mistake in what you said. I can site many examples already, but find it useless and a waste of my time as well as everybody elses.
So stop posting stupid replys like Today is tomorrow or I have a small penis. Those are to easy. If you wanted to try with your penis comment it should have gone like this "At the time of my birth, my penis was of very small size in comparison to the dimensions of my penis today." THAT he couldn't prove wrong.
Its not that he is so smart, its just that some of you post really stupid remarks.
Done alreadyDoms wrote:
Heres one, you are existing.
Hitler didn't have it for his whole lifeUndetected_Killer wrote:
Hitler had a mustache.
I did this thread for funKnightnifer wrote:
You made this thread thinking you could prove everything and anything wrong, when you read the first page you knew you had made a mistake...
Both doneTompie913 wrote:
You exist
George W. Bush is a bad leader
Right the second I read that claim it wasn't.Mafia47 wrote:
In wisconsin right this very second. It is Feburary 20, 2007 and the time is 3:55:15 PM
God is in the minds of those who believe in god.Brain_Soup wrote:
There isn't a God
He had for a part of his life. seen in many pictures.Undetected_Killer wrote:
Hitler did not have a mustache.
Not so sure. let's have an example:antin0de wrote:
TRUE=TRUE
O.J said he didn't kill his family. He said that is the truth, but anyone can understand that was a lie.
True can be false
One word: NUKER3v4n wrote:
The most effective battle is fort by cuting the enemy's supply line. Thus losing minimal casualties.
Prove me wrong.
What penis?gene_pool wrote:
My penis is smaller then yours.
98% of my proofs are supposingBell wrote:
Thats not proof, that is supposing!DeathUnlimited wrote:
I will never know that for sure, they could have changed my mother's real child to cloned a boy of a hairy gayjkohlc wrote:
You are born from a female.
Martyn
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
I rofled at that fight with bootsy
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
I don't have a sister
yes you do. Every woman is a "human-sister" for you.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
I don't have a sister
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
A cheap sheep is a cheaper sheep when the cheap sheep aren't as cheap when they were cheaper then before getting cheap sheep.
Not if you are in Belgium !^*AlphA*^ wrote:
A cheap sheep is a cheaper sheep when the cheap sheep aren't as cheap when they were cheaper then before getting cheap sheep.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
k. Makes no sense to me.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
A cheap sheep is a cheaper sheep when the cheap sheep aren't as cheap when they were cheaper then before getting cheap sheep.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
I won thenDeathUnlimited wrote:
k. Makes no sense to me.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
A cheap sheep is a cheaper sheep when the cheap sheep aren't as cheap when they were cheaper then before getting cheap sheep.
Close the thread then.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
I won thenDeathUnlimited wrote:
k. Makes no sense to me.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
A cheap sheep is a cheaper sheep when the cheap sheep aren't as cheap when they were cheaper then before getting cheap sheep.
why should I, I might have won one against him doesn't mean everyone else has too.bubbass wrote:
Close the thread then.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
I won thenDeathUnlimited wrote:
k. Makes no sense to me.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=54822bubbass wrote:
Close the thread then.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
I won thenDeathUnlimited wrote:
k. Makes no sense to me.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
?
What did he write?
What did he write?
Last edited by DeathUnlimited (2007-02-21 08:39:47)
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
Sorry, I can't post in this thread anymore.DeathUnlimited wrote:
?
lawlz
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
Yeah, but I didn't spell it in cap starts, did I?DeathUnlimited wrote:
Day after Tomorrow is a movie.NooBesT[FiN] wrote:
Yesterday is two days before yesterday of day after tomorrow.
Last edited by NooBesT[FiN] (2007-02-21 11:37:00)
(a) A cheap sheep (a set; or set #1)^*AlphA*^ wrote:
(a)A cheap sheep is a (b) cheaper sheep when the (c) cheap sheep aren't as (1) cheap when they were (2) cheaper then before getting (d) cheap sheep.
(b) is a cheaper sheep (set #1, is member of; has the quality of set #2, being a cheaper sheep)
(c) when (if conditional) the cheap sheep (an actual set that does not have to be set #1, as cheap sheep [could be another set - set #3] as it could conditionally be cheaper than the other cheap sheep of set #1); set #3 or possibly is set #1 (or you can call this a super-set 1&3 combined).
(d) There is an economic principle or theory being suggested here that the flooding of the market with cheap sheep will drive the market value down. This is only true if the demand for cheaper cheep does not rise.
*1.) Set #1 or set #3 (or the super-set 1&3) is NOT...
2.) as valuable (thus a member of set #2) prior to (d) the market principle invoked.
FALSE, if the demand is there - cheaper sheep will actually not be cheaper.
*Note: cheap (aren't as cheap) fails to be clear as a statement; as cheaper is NOT as cheap; and yet more expensive is NOT as cheap either - strictly speaking. Either way this statement is FALSE; the actual (value) cheapness of the sheep is dependent upon DEMAND not just AVAILABILITY of cheap sheep.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-21 12:02:36)
You and spelling just don't fit in the same sentenceNooBesT[FiN] wrote:
Yeah, but I didn't spell it in cap starts, did I?DeathUnlimited wrote:
Day after Tomorrow is a movie.NooBesT[FiN] wrote:
Yesterday is two days before yesterday of day after tomorrow.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
qualified as the Official Answer.topal63 wrote:
(a) A cheap sheep (a set; or set #1)^*AlphA*^ wrote:
(a)A cheap sheep is a (b) cheaper sheep when the (c) cheap sheep aren't as (1) cheap when they were (2) cheaper then before getting (d) cheap sheep.
(b) is a cheaper sheep (set #1, is member of; has the quality of set #2, being a cheaper sheep)
(c) when (if conditional) the cheap sheep (an actual set that does not have to be set #1, as cheap sheep [could be another set - set #3] as it could conditionally be cheaper than the other cheap sheep of set #1); set #3 or possibly is set #1 (or you can call this a super-set 1&3 combined).
(d) There is an economic principle or theory being suggested here that the flooding of the market with cheap sheep will drive the market value down. This is only true if the demand for cheaper cheep does not rise.
1.) Set #1 or set #3 (or the super-set 1&3) is NOT...
2.) as valuable (thus a member of set #2) prior to (d) the market principle invoked.
FALSE, if the demand is there - cheaper sheep will actually not be cheaper.
I'd karma you, if I hadn't done it already
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg