home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!tilden
- From: tilden@venture.ksu.ksu.edu (Tilden-Master of Illogic)
- Newsgroups: alt.flame
- Subject: Re: K e n Is Not Boring (was Re: Aza. Is She, or Isn't He?)
- Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:02:29 -0600
- Organization: Kansas State University
- Lines: 114
- Sender: tilden@venture.ksu.ksu.edu (Tilden-Master of Illogic)
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1e8r85INN1oi@venture.ksu.ksu.edu>
- References: <1dp3hfINNi70@discovery.ksu.ksu.edu> <BxKG17.BtD@cs.psu.edu> <1dsbmqINNo7p@discovery.ksu.ksu.edu> <Bxo1vF.ArK@cs.psu.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: venture.ksu.ksu.edu
-
-
- In article <Bxo1vF.ArK@cs.psu.edu>, krobinso@orange.crayola.cs.psu.edu (Kenneth J Robinson) writes:
- >>>>>>>>>K e n does not bore people, for K e n is K e n, and K e n can only be
- >>>>>>>>>K e n, thus K e n is K e n and only K e n.
- >>>>>>>>>
- >>>>>>>>
- >>>>>>>>Wait wait wait a minute...K e n is K e n, therefore K e n does not bore people?
- >>>>>>>>I'm having a problem with the logical connection between the two...
- >>>>>>>
- >>>>>>>Simple, K e n is K e n, and since K e n is K e n, then K e n is K e n,
- >>>>>>>and thus K e n is not boring, for K e n can only be K e n.
- >>>>>>>
- >>>>>>>K e n R o b i n s o n
- >>>>>>
- >>>>>>Does K e n have the ability to fucking well refer to himself in the first person?
- >>>>>
- >>>>>K e n can refer to K e n anyway K e n deems to.
- >>>>
- >>>>Then refer to yourself as a fool, for that is what you are.
- >>>
- >>>But then K e n would be just like you. But K e n is not like you, thus
- >>
- >>I thank God you are not like me. I would not wish to be a moron as yourself.
- >
- >K e n is not a moron, for K e n is K e n. In any case, you could never
- >be like me, for you lack the intelligence.
-
- I would ask you to wager upon that fact, but you seem to meak and fearful you would lose as
- indicated below.
- >
- >>>K e n is not a fool.
- >>
- >>Would you care to wager on that, moron?
- >
- >K e n does not gamble. Gambling is illegal.
- >
- Thus resting the point I made above. Only one who knows they can not win would respond as such,
- which also proves you are a fraud. Don't respond to this by saying something like:
-
- K e n is not a fraud, for K e n is K e n and cannot lie.
-
- It would only prove me correct in my theory. As to the point of my intelligence, you know nothing
- of how intelligent I am nor are you able to know.
-
- >>>>>>We know K e n is K e n, But K e n is also a fucking dipshit in the honest oppinion
- >>>>>>of several million people viewing this part of the net.
- >>>>>
- >>>>>Perhaps you would like to post your poll of several million people.
- >>>>>K e n is interested in what people have to say. K e n requires information
- >>>>>at once.
- >>>>>
- >>>>I would not want to upset you, as if I could, for your ego is to large.
- >>>
- >>>In other words, you never polled several million people. In other words,
- >>>you're full of shit.
- >>
- >>Check the posts, moron. I have posed this question, and thus confirmed this
- >>through the posting of Charles Kincy whom writes:
- >>
- >>|: Everyone already knows that KJR is a dipshit.
- >> ^^^(as refering to you)
- >
- >This is illogical. K e n cannot see how you can attain several million
- >people in a poll, when that number of posts has not been attained since K e n
- >has started posting to this group. Further, it is highly doubtful that
- >Mr. Kincy would know that many people, and besides, Mr. Kincy is
- >a misinformed individual, thus your source is not good. You sir,
-
- I would love to hear Mr. Kincy's responce to that remark.
-
- >have made an error in your argument. You are indeed misinformed.
- >
- >>>>>>Also, stop trying to be Zen Budda for us and get a life K E N !!!!!!
- >>>>>
- >>>>>K e n is not Zen Budda. K e n is K e n. You have been informed.
- >>>>>
- >>>>This is correct. Zen Budda had more sense that did you. But it is true that you
- >>>>portray yourself as a philosopher as was Budda. This is your error. You lack
- >>>>the philosophical background to do this. But, far be it from me to accuse you
- >>>>of this without a test. I then pose you this question: What is that which is
- >>>>eternal in nature, but ends continuously?
- >>>
- >>>Nothing in nature fits this description.
- >>
- >>WRONG!! There is an answer, therefore your ability to philosophize here is
- >>a fraudulant display of stupidity.
- >
- >K e n's answer is correct. You have erred once again. Further, you have
- >not given an answer to your question. K e n sees no evidence that suggests
- >that K e n made a mistake. K e n is correct.
-
- The answer is life. Life is eternal in its nature but is ended by death daily.
- If you had an iota of intelligence, you would have been able to answer correctly,
- but K e n has no intelligence, therefore K e n is a moron.
-
- >
- >>>>I await your answer.
- >>>
- >>>Your answer has been given.
- >>
- >>I think not. Try again moron.
- >
- >No need to, for K e n is correct.
-
- That is not correct. K e n is incorrect.
-
- >
- >>PS If you should want a clue as toward the answer to my riddle, e-mail me.
- >> You have my address.
- >
- >K e n does not require clues, for K e n is correct. You sir, are in dire
- >need of clues.
- >
- K e n does require clues, for K e n was unable to answer.
-