Re: [curiosa] Re: Debian Centre of Mass
Wow. I thought I'd seen the epitome of flame bait but this takes the
prize...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinv@hockey.net>
To: "a. l. c h a r l e s" <alchar@sunbeach.net>;
<debian-curiosa@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [curiosa] Re: Debian Centre of Mass
> so god doesn't exist?
>
> At 12:33 PM -0400 7/16/01, a. l. c h a r l e s wrote:
> >e^(i*pi)= -1
> >
> >Not 1.
> >
> >At 12:10 2001/07/16, you wrote:
> >> > But e^(i * pi) is integer, and equal to 1.
> >>
> >>here's how to go about proving the existence of god:
> >>
> >>1) assume god exists.
> >>2)
> >>
> >>
> >>--
>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> >>http://web.morgul.net/~atomic "Probably the best operating system
> >> in the world is the [operating
system]
> >>GAT d--@ -p+ c+++(++++) l++ made for the PDP-11 by Bell
> >>Laboratories."
> >>u+ e+(*) m* s n+(---) h- f+ - Ted Nelson, October 1977
> >>!g w+++ t++(+++) r+ x+
> >> Recursion n.:
> >> See Recursion.
> >> -- Random Shack Data
> >>Processing Dictionary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-curiosa-request@lists.debian.org
> >>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
> >
> >It is necessary to be gracious as to intentions; one should believe
> >them good, and apparently they are; but we do not have to be
> >gracious at all to inconsistent logic or to absurd reasoning. Bad
> >logicians have committed more involuntary crimes than bad men have
> >done intentionally.
> > ~Pierre S. du Pont , 1790
> >
> > dr. a. l. c h a r l e s
> > alchar@sunbeach.net
> > barbados.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-curiosa-request@lists.debian.org
> >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-curiosa-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: