Refuting the notion that there is no need for new sections under General Academics

[CWL]

Ok. I confess. This thread is nothing but a shameless plug for this poll (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19427) of mine.

[Upchurch]

I disagree that there isn't a lack of need for the non-creation of new sections under General Academics.

Don't show me where I'm not incorrect.

[CWL]

Look. It should be noted that I am not arguing that the lack of need for the non-creation of new sections under General Academics is not inconclusively unrefuted, nor that the non-existence of a need for the non-creation of new sections is as superflous as the non-necessity of the undoing of new sections under General Academics.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by CWL
Look. It should be noted that I am not arguing that the lack of need for the non-creation of new sections under General Academics is not inconclusively unrefuted, nor that the non-existence of a need for the non-creation of new sections is as superflous as the non-necessity of the undoing of new sections under General Academics.

I'm sorry, I just don't see where your argument has validity. I think it all comes back to your definition of "inconclusively". You apparently mean it in the sense of "not conclusive" while I prefer the more concise interpretations.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I'm sorry, I just don't see where your argument has validity. I think it all comes back to your definition of "inconclusively". You apparently mean it in the sense of "not conclusive" while I prefer the more concise interpretations. I am not in disagreement with the opposing viewpoint of the one displayed above.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I am not in disagreement with the opposing viewpoint of the one displayed above.

Nor am I not necessariliy in disagreement as regards the non invalidity of the unrefuted non-issue in question.

[Q-Source]

Nor am I not necessariliy in disagreement as regards the non invalidity of the unrefuted non-issue in question.

CWL,

This is utterly preposterous

I await your sure-to-follow missive which I know will completely obviate the necessity for any further debate on this topic. I intuit that your proposition has transformed into a complete and absolutely accurate description of our needs.

Q-S

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CWL
Look. It should be noted that I am not arguing that the lack of need for the non-creation of new sections under General Academics is not inconclusively unrefuted, nor that the non-existence of a need for the non-creation of new sections is as superflous as the non-necessity of the undoing of new sections under General Academics.

Hey! This looks just about as intelligible as the arguments against my position in my thread! LOL :D

[Giz]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hey! This looks just about as intelligible as the arguments against my position in my thread! LOL :D

Uh, I think maybe that's because you've jumped into a shameless parody of your thread?

[Checkmite]

I'm not quite unsure that the non-necessity of not creating new sections is not altogether inconceivable. Not to be unfair, but I don't lack a belief in the impossibility of other not potential non-solutions to our current absence of a problem.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Giz


Uh, I think maybe that's because you've jumped into a shameless parody of your thread? Ya don't say? ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
I'm not quite unsure that the non-necessity of not creating new sections is not altogether inconceivable. Not to be unfair, but I don't lack a belief in the impossibility of other not potential non-solutions to our current absence of a problem.

Oooh man, what is this creeping idealism, I shall hence forth refer to you as..insert epithet of non-choice.... and demnad that you concede to my arguement immedeatly!

The impossibility of other not potential non-solutions is implicit in the fact that there is no eveidence for other non-universes, which is negatively speculative hyperbole. This is obvious an argument ad normium, any ignoramus would concede the vailkidty of the lack of provable non-conjectures about the apparent(but only to materialists!) current absence of non-issues undefined as non problems.

I am disgusted with you people and will no longer post to this thresd as it is a unverifiable waste of reverse time!


Un Funkfully Yours