Vegetarian Discussion: Thanks For Revisiting This Rupert....

Thanks For Revisiting This Rupert....
Posts: 9

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-06 15:07:31 EST
"Enough of it. But I don't need to understand it,
because I'm not trying to understand his thesis. I can
recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
"axiomatizable" is such a word. It's not a real word,
even though it serves a real and useful purpose to
mathematicians." - Jonathan Ball


As incredible as it seems Boobs still tried to salvage a tiny bit of
his imaginary self respect after having been shown that
"axiomatizable" is a real word. Also we can't forget that even though
Boobs had (and still has) no clue what "axiomatizable" means, he was
still able to, by some incredible insight of genius proportions,
determine quite stupidly that Rupert had used the word
inappropriately. Unfortunately his last attempt at any discussion on
the word was all for naught as he only dug himself to a deeper level
of stupidity.

Let's dissect what he was saying:

"Enough of it.

Clearly Boobs wants to distance himself from any more discussion about
"axiomatizable".


" But I don't need to understand it,
because I'm not trying to understand his thesis."


He indicates he still has no idea what the word actually means.





" I can recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
"axiomatizable" is such a word."



Boobs admits "axiomatizable" is a REAL word.






"It's not a real word,"


LOL!!

Now he's back to denying it's a REAL word.


"even though it serves a real and useful purpose to mathematicians." -
Jonathan Ball


So Boobs' conclusion is that "axiomatizable" is a REAL word but
because it's only used in a math context, it's not a real word even
though Boobs himself admits mathematicians have a REAL use and purpose
for it.


What a goober.








D*@.
2008-05-06 19:54:13 EST
On Tue, 6 May 2008 12:07:31 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com> wrote:

>"Enough of it. But I don't need to understand it,
>because I'm not trying to understand his thesis. I can
>recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
>"axiomatizable" is such a word. It's not a real word,
>even though it serves a real and useful purpose to
>mathematicians." - Jonathan Ball
>
>
>As incredible as it seems Boobs still tried to salvage a tiny bit of
>his imaginary self respect after having been shown that
>"axiomatizable" is a real word. Also we can't forget that even though
>Boobs had (and still has) no clue what "axiomatizable" means, he was
>still able to, by some incredible insight of genius proportions,
>determine quite stupidly that Rupert had used the word
>inappropriately. Unfortunately his last attempt at any discussion on
>the word was all for naught as he only dug himself to a deeper level
>of stupidity.
>
>Let's dissect what he was saying:
>
>"Enough of it.
>
>Clearly Boobs wants to distance himself from any more discussion about
>"axiomatizable".
>
>
>" But I don't need to understand it,
>because I'm not trying to understand his thesis."
>
>
>He indicates he still has no idea what the word actually means.
>
>
>" I can recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
>"axiomatizable" is such a word."
>
>
>Boobs admits "axiomatizable" is a REAL word.
>
>
> "It's not a real word,"
>
>
>LOL!!
>
>Now he's back to denying it's a REAL word.
>
>
>"even though it serves a real and useful purpose to mathematicians." -
>Jonathan Ball
>
>
>So Boobs' conclusion is that "axiomatizable" is a REAL word but
>because it's only used in a math context, it's not a real word even
>though Boobs himself admits mathematicians have a REAL use and purpose
>for it.
>
>
>What a goober.

Indeed. If we refer to this fact as an axiom:

The Goober is a known liar.

and apply it to our evaluation of said Goober,
then can't we say that our evaluation of Goo's
personal nature is in fact axiomatizable?

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-07 14:13:57 EST
On May 7, 9:54 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 12:07:31 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote:
> >"Enough of it.  But I don't need to understand it,
> >because I'm not trying to understand his thesis.  I can
> >recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
> >"axiomatizable" is such a word.  It's not a real word,
> >even though it serves a real and useful purpose to
> >mathematicians." - Jonathan Ball
>
> >As incredible as it seems Boobs still tried to salvage a tiny bit of
> >his imaginary self respect after having been shown that
> >"axiomatizable" is a real word. Also we can't forget that even though
> >Boobs had (and still has) no clue what "axiomatizable" means, he was
> >still able to, by some incredible insight of genius proportions,
> >determine quite stupidly that Rupert had used the word
> >inappropriately. Unfortunately his last attempt at any discussion on
> >the word was all for naught as he only dug himself to a deeper level
> >of stupidity.
>
> >Let's dissect what he was saying:
>
> >"Enough of it.
>
> >Clearly Boobs wants to distance himself from any more discussion about
> >"axiomatizable".
>
> >" But I don't need to understand it,
> >because I'm not trying to understand his thesis."
>
> >He indicates he still has no idea what the word actually means.
>
> >"  I can recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
> >"axiomatizable" is such a word."
>
> >Boobs admits "axiomatizable" is a REAL word.
>
> >  "It's not a real word,"
>
> >LOL!!
>
> >Now he's back to denying it's a REAL word.
>
> >"even though it serves a real and useful purpose to mathematicians." -
> >Jonathan Ball
>
> >So Boobs' conclusion is that "axiomatizable" is a REAL word but
> >because it's only used in a math context, it's not a real word even
> >though Boobs himself admits mathematicians have a REAL use and purpose
> >for it.
>
> >What a goober.
>
>     Indeed. If we refer to this fact as an axiom:
>
> The Goober is a known liar.
>
> and apply it to our evaluation of said Goober,
> then can't we say that our evaluation of Goo's
> personal nature is in fact axiomatizable?-

Hmmm.......perhaps that's why Boobs sez axiomatizable is not a real
word, and is being used inappropriately. He doesn't want it used in
reference to him.



D*@.
2008-05-08 02:18:44 EST
On Wed, 7 May 2008 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <bcpg@canada.com> wrote:

>On May 7, 9:54 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 12:07:31 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants" <b...@canada.com> wrote:
>> >"Enough of it.  But I don't need to understand it,
>> >because I'm not trying to understand his thesis.  I can
>> >recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
>> >"axiomatizable" is such a word.  It's not a real word,
>> >even though it serves a real and useful purpose to
>> >mathematicians." - Jonathan Ball
>>
>> >As incredible as it seems Boobs still tried to salvage a tiny bit of
>> >his imaginary self respect after having been shown that
>> >"axiomatizable" is a real word. Also we can't forget that even though
>> >Boobs had (and still has) no clue what "axiomatizable" means, he was
>> >still able to, by some incredible insight of genius proportions,
>> >determine quite stupidly that Rupert had used the word
>> >inappropriately. Unfortunately his last attempt at any discussion on
>> >the word was all for naught as he only dug himself to a deeper level
>> >of stupidity.
>>
>> >Let's dissect what he was saying:
>>
>> >"Enough of it.
>>
>> >Clearly Boobs wants to distance himself from any more discussion about
>> >"axiomatizable".
>>
>> >" But I don't need to understand it,
>> >because I'm not trying to understand his thesis."
>>
>> >He indicates he still has no idea what the word actually means.
>>
>> >"  I can recognize insider jargon when I see it, though, and
>> >"axiomatizable" is such a word."
>>
>> >Boobs admits "axiomatizable" is a REAL word.
>>
>> >  "It's not a real word,"
>>
>> >LOL!!
>>
>> >Now he's back to denying it's a REAL word.
>>
>> >"even though it serves a real and useful purpose to mathematicians." -
>> >Jonathan Ball
>>
>> >So Boobs' conclusion is that "axiomatizable" is a REAL word but
>> >because it's only used in a math context, it's not a real word even
>> >though Boobs himself admits mathematicians have a REAL use and purpose
>> >for it.
>>
>> >What a goober.
>>
>>     Indeed. If we refer to this fact as an axiom:
>>
>> The Goober is a known liar.
>>
>> and apply it to our evaluation of said Goober,
>> then can't we say that our evaluation of Goo's
>> personal nature is in fact axiomatizable?-
>
>Hmmm.......perhaps that's why Boobs sez axiomatizable is not a real
>word, and is being used inappropriately. He doesn't want it used in
>reference to him.

Quite likely.

Rudy Canoza
2008-05-08 15:24:07 EST
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
presented no challenge:

> [snip ignorant cracker bullshit]

Your PC date is wrong, Fuckwit. Fix it.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-08 16:07:03 EST
On May 9, 5:24 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
> presented no challenge:
>
> > [snip ignorant cracker bullshit]
>
> Your PC date is wrong, Fuckwit.  Fix it.



LOL!!

That's *all* you can come up with Boobs?

Now scuttle away and hide before Rupert finds you and paddles your ass
some more.


Rudy Canoza
2008-05-08 16:22:34 EST
You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
some new stupid jerk-off crap.



right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
time, runny bullshitted:

> On May 9, 5:24 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
>> presented no challenge:
>>
>>> [snip ignorant cracker bullshit]
>> Your PC date is wrong, Fuckwit. Fix it.
>
>
>
> LOL!! [snip other meaningless do-nothing jerk-off bullshit]

You probably think his clock is right.

Mr.Smartypants
2008-05-08 18:12:34 EST
On May 9, 6:22 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> You really can't help yourself, can you?  Reflexively, you have to post
> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>
> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
> time, runny bullshitted:
>
> > On May 9, 5:24 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
> >> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
> >> presented no challenge:
>
> >>> [snip ignorant cracker bullshit]
> >> Your PC date is wrong, Fuckwit.  Fix it.
>
> > LOL!!  [snip other meaningless do-nothing jerk-off bullshit]
>
> You probably think his clock is right.



Maybe everything you think you know about time is wrong, Boobs.

Rudy Canoza
2008-05-08 18:13:23 EST
You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
some new stupid jerk-off crap.



right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
time, runny bullshitted:

> On May 9, 6:22 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> You really can't help yourself, can you? Reflexively, you have to post
>> some new stupid jerk-off crap.
>>
>> right on cue, and without anything meaningful to occupy his jerk-off
>> time, runny bullshitted:
>>
>>> On May 9, 5:24 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>>>> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, admittedly uneducated cracker - lied and
>>>> presented no challenge:
>>>>> [snip ignorant cracker bullshit]
>>>> Your PC date is wrong, Fuckwit. Fix it.
>>> LOL!! [snip other meaningless do-nothing jerk-off bullshit]
>> You probably think his clock is right.
>
>
>
> [snip stupid, do-nothing jerk-off bullshit]


All you can do.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron