[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Totally OT] Re: Hmmm. A question. Was [Re: Debian is losing its users]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:19:15PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 21:15:05 -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:14AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:13:29 -0500, Kent West wrote:
> >>>> Florian Kulzer wrote:

> >>>>> Is this the right room for an argument?
> >>>> HA-HAAAA!
> >>>> I loved Flying Circus!
> >>> No, you didn't!
> >> Well, now you're just contradicting.
> > No, he's not!
> Yes, I am!

While you may be, he says your are not, yet if you are not then you
cannot be to argue that you are, and his arguement comes to naught.
While one can argue that another is not, by his very declaration, the
other declares themselves to be.

As to flying circi, while the cloth is held aloft by poles and contain
the heat of the enclosed, and their gaseous eminations, yet the pegs
which hold the walls upright and keep the wind from intruding, conspire
to affix firmly the circus to the ground.  Ergo, no flying.

Therefore, if circi do not fly, you could not have loved it.  Therefore,
the one who claims to be, merely contradicting, is not but pointing out
that the other did not love the flying circus, he is wrong in his
assertion that he is, therefore he is not.  

Herein lies the paradox: he who is proved not, declares himself to be.
Thus, perhaps, in his being not, signifies nothing.



Reply to: