Errare Humanum est. IMO you still haven't proved me wrong.DeathUnlimited wrote:
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.
lol and d'oh..............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.
Neg, The resources, tech and man power to create a nuke are far more, then sending a fleet of ships to blockade a supply line. And to win a war with out wiping the enemy out is also far greater victory then to wipe them out.DeathUnlimited wrote:
One word: NUKER3v4n wrote:
The most effective battle is fort by cuting the enemy's supply line. Thus losing minimal casualties.
Prove me wrong.
Last edited by R3v4n (2007-02-21 12:01:46)
k let's see... Whatever... Happy times with your enlarged e-penisNooBesT[FiN] wrote:
Yesterday is two days before yesterday of day after tomorrow.
Then why drop 2 A-bombs on Japan to force an unconditional surrender; if there was a more effective way? (That's a rhetorical question - of course)... U BEEN PWNZORED NUBSTUB!R3v4n wrote:
Neg, The resources, tech and man power to create a nuke are far more, then sending a fleet of ships to blockade a supply line. And to win a war with out wiping the enemy out is also far greater victory then to wipe them out.DeathUnlimited wrote:
One word: NUKER3v4n wrote:
The most effective battle is fort by cuting the enemy's supply line. Thus losing minimal casualties.
Prove me wrong.
Try again.
You said it is the most effective way to avoid casualties... Though I doubt making a nuke would kill the men / women working on it. So DU is right.R3v4n wrote:
The most effective battle is fort by cuting the enemy's supply line. Thus losing minimal casualties.
Prove me wrong.
the sun's hydrogen & helium atoms just move faster.ChevyLee86 wrote:
the sun is hot
Or ...DeathUnlimited wrote:
the sun's hydrogen & helium atoms just move faster.ChevyLee86 wrote:
the sun is hot
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-22 07:51:26)
How come it warms our planet then?topal63 wrote:
Or ...DeathUnlimited wrote:
the sun's hydrogen & helium atoms just move faster.ChevyLee86 wrote:
the sun is hot
NOT(!) - because the Sun is COLDER than - what is possible, it is just not as COLD as the surrounding space.
http://www.yle.fi/urheilu/etusivu/id67219.htmlZimmer wrote:
I bet you cannot prove this wrong.
Deco scored a sexy header on minute 13.50 agaisnt Liverpool. Now Barcelona are 1 up and Liverpool suck.
^*AlphA*^ wrote:
Laurel and Hardy are dead
this laurel isn't
this hardy isn't
stfu, kCoolbeano wrote:
X can be either X or not X.
The single universal truth buddy, take TOK and maybe you'll get it. You even said yourself how X can be inequivalent to X.
ChevyLee86 wrote:
the sun is hot
It's obvious - it's a relative term...NooBesT[FiN] wrote:
How come it warms our planet then?topal63 wrote:
Or ...DeathUnlimited wrote:
the sun's hydrogen & helium atoms just move faster.
NOT(!) - because the Sun is COLDER than - what is possible, it is just not as COLD as the surrounding space.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-22 09:06:17)
You give up eh?DeathUnlimited wrote:
stfu, kCoolbeano wrote:
X can be either X or not X.
The single universal truth buddy, take TOK and maybe you'll get it. You even said yourself how X can be inequivalent to X.
I'd won one against him too not that long ago but always a Einstein comes along and ruins the fun !Coolbeano wrote:
You give up eh?DeathUnlimited wrote:
stfu, kCoolbeano wrote:
X can be either X or not X.
The single universal truth buddy, take TOK and maybe you'll get it. You even said yourself how X can be inequivalent to X.
FALSE... it is an abstraction; and they are only TRUE in mind; or on paper; BUT are never TRUE in reality. The only truth in existence is that all (so-called) truths are incomplete ( including this one ); and that they are most often generalizations by induction; or approximations in reality... fantasies of mind when an abstraction (or symbolic in form).Coolbeano wrote:
X can be either X or not X.