Test
in [Logic]
|
Prev: LWalk, do you see why Iain Davidson has a error filled fake proof? #4.15 Correcting Math
Next: misleading idea of contradiction proofs; Twin Primes must have a Euclid type proof #4.17 Correcting Math
From: herbzet on 24 Jul 2010 23:22 Nothing to see here, move along.
From: Marshall on 25 Jul 2010 08:51 On Jul 24, 8:22 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing to see here, move along. Consider me moved! I'm resolved on this. It is already forgotten. Marshall
From: herbzet on 25 Jul 2010 12:52 Marshall wrote: > herbzet wrote: > > Nothing to see here, move along. > > Consider me moved! I'm resolved on this. It is already forgotten. What part of "beat it" don't you understand?
From: Jim Burns on 25 Jul 2010 14:31 herbzet wrote: > Marshall wrote: >> herbzet wrote: > >>> Nothing to see here, move along. >> >> Consider me moved! I'm resolved on this. >> It is already forgotten. > > What part of "beat it" don't you understand? Wait! What am I supposed to ignore? I mean, what if I get it wrong? The possibilities are ominous.
From: Marshall on 25 Jul 2010 16:43
On Jul 25, 9:52 am, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > herbzet wrote: > > > Nothing to see here, move along. > > > Consider me moved! I'm resolved on this. It is already forgotten. > > What part of "beat it" don't you understand? Well, most of the lyrics, actually. The chorus starts simply enough: Beat it Beat it and then what? The next line is unintelligible. And after that he says something about being "funky" but I can't tell what it is. How then am I to become sufficiently funky when the libretto is thus inscrutable? Marshall PS. Don't even get me started on "Billy Jean." |