[4.1 SECOND Conversion] (without weird fonts too!)

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Silly" may indeed be a synonym for "wasteful". But was it, in this case?

Perhaps you'd be so diligent as to link to where I argued otherwise?

Oh, that's right ... you can't, because I haven't.

Stick to ones and zeroes, Jordan; once you get beyond two symbols, you're obviously in water over your head, typical of any binary thinker.

---

As an addendum, when I want my car fixed, I don't go to a dentist, and in a similar vein, when I want philosophical insight, I don't turn to a self-proclaimed "programming god".

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

"Silly" may indeed be a synonym for "wasteful". But was it, in this case?

Perhaps you'd be so diligent as to link to where I argued otherwise?

Oh, that's right ... you can't, because I haven't.

Stick to ones and zeroes, Jordan; once you get beyond two symbols, you're obviously in water over your head, typical of any binary thinker.

---

As an addendum, when I want my car fixed, I don't go to a dentist, and in a similar vein, when I want philosophical insight, I don't turn to a self-proclaimed "programming god".

Well, you did erroneously assert that I had strictly expressed 'a belief'.
Things may be trivially observed as wasteful, absent the use of belief.

"Silly" is the belief in play, kiddo.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, you did erroneously assert that I had strictly expressed 'a belief'.

Fixed for accuracy.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Well, you did erroneously assert that I had strictly expressed 'a belief'.

Fixed for accuracy.

As far as science prescribes, no sequence is free from error.
Anyway, your unnecessary error is observable in my prior comment, you erroneously instantiated that I had expressed a 'belief', appearing to lack awareness that a silly thing may constitute waste, absent belief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fixed for accuracy.

As far as science prescribes, no sequence is free from error.
Anyway, your unnecessary error is observable in my prior comment, you erroneously instantiated that I had expressed a 'belief', appearing to lack awareness that a silly thing may constitute waste, absent belief.

Yes, I know you don't know what a belief actually is.

[Aristocatt]

Yes, I know you don't know what a belief actually is.

Really?

How do you Know
that to be the case.


DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT ONLY PROBABILISTIC KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE CLAIMS OF KNOWLEDGE ARE INVARIABLY IMPOSSIBLE LEAVING YOU WITH 0 DEGREES OF BELIEF FOR THINKING THAT HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT BELIEF IS

WITH NO DEGREES OF BELIEF YOU CLEARLY LACK THE BELIEF THAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT BELIEF IS.

THEREFORE YOU KNOW THAT HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT BELIEF IS! 

[Edwardo Piet]

Nonsense! Are you theistic? For theists tend to make irrational observe study albeit.  

[Aristocatt]

Impossible

Direct yourself to my proof above.

Theists KNOW God exists, but knowledge is impossible, and without knowledge I have 0 degrees of belief in god, therefore I know god can't exist.

I'll stop now...sometimes my knowledge of knowledge not existing just gets me a little too excited.

[Edwardo Piet]

INCORRECT.

Observe that you would have realized your incorrectness had you read A DICTIONARY seen as you have not I can only conclude probalistically that you HAVE A BELIEF I'm right you're wrong. Albeit.

[ApeNotKillApe]

01001001 01110010 01101001 01100101 00100001