Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit
and a stupid credulous Southern Baptist shitworm - lied and presented no
challenge:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Rudy Canoza humiliated Goo****wit *again*:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit and a stupid credulous Southern Baptist shitworm - lied and presented no challenge:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Rudy Canoza humiliated Goo****wit *again*:

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid ****wit and a stupid credulous Southern Baptist shitworm - lied and presented no challenge:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Rudy Canoza humiliated Goo****wit *again*:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:51:51 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

In Moshé Machover's "Set Theory, Logic and their Limitations" there is
a section titled "Axiomatizability" in which a detailed and precise
definition of "axiomatizable" is given. The word appears in the
statement of a theorem in that section. It also appears in the
statement of an important theorem in Stephen Simpson's highly
acclaimed "Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic".

I typed "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary axiomatizable" into Google
and clicked "I'm feeling lucky". I got a logic paper published by
Oxford University Press. Unfortunately the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary is not available on-line for free.

The number of hits for "axiomatizable" on Google is astronomical. This
article might be of some interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_class

We also have this:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...atizable+class


When we type "axiomatizable dictionary" into Google, the first hit we
get are the entries for "axiomatize" and "axiomatization" in Merriam-
Webster, which was Ball's original source. Similarly, Merriam-Webster
contains "plagiarize" but not "plagiarizable", although the latter
word gets a large number of hits on Google.

So maybe according to Ball's philosophy, "axiomatize" is a real word
but "axiomatizable" is not, "plagiarize" is a real word but
"plagiarizable" is not. I don't know. Would that I could fathom Ball's
subtle mind.

So anyway, apparently when I used "axiomatizable" in my paper I was
engaging in "inappropriate use of specialized jargon". (Ball, please
note: this is satire, I am not conceding your point of view here.
Sorry, people, Ball needs to have points like that explained to him).
Presumably Stephen Simpson was also doing so in his highly-acclaimed
"Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic". And so Ball was entitled to
call me a "pompous fat ****". And I'm continuing to debate Ball on the
matter out of a masochistic compulsion rather than a desire for comic
material. And the fact that he "mockingly and derisively snips my
posts" means that he is winning.

And so the fun goes on.
Too funny, rupie - just too ****ing funny!
It's funny that you think so Goo, no doubt about it.
No
Now that
you've had some time to settle down from the horrible confusion
the information overload caused to your tiny crumb of brain, why
not try to address some of the facts that were presented to you,
Goo?
rupie's oh-so-earnest effort, and need to show how smart he
is, are what's funny.
LOL! Your cowardly reaction to them is funny Goober, but
there's nothing funny about the information he provided. It's
funny that you can't comprehend it and are afraid to comment
on it...your confusion is hilarious Goo. If you ever think you
have some clue about any of it, it would no doubt be great
fun to see you try to comment, especially if you can get back
to the reason he introduced you to the term to begin with. Since
you've already made a complete fool of yourself by crying about
the fact that he presented you with information, you don't really
have much to lose by trying to understand it Goo.

He provided no "information", Goo, just as you do not "point out"
or "explain". You bullshit, Goo - that's all.

Try to at least comprehend that

He provided no "information", Goo. You do not "point out" or "explain.
You bullshit.