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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Rassclaat!

Bomboclaat

----Boru's double signature is still silly

Yes, it is.

Boru

[Cyberman]

Boru's double signature is still silly

Sounds like a belief to me.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Boru's double signature is still silly

Sounds like a belief to me.

It is observably redundant; 'Boru' is already contained in his/her signature.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Silly" is the belief in play, kiddo.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sounds like a belief to me.

It is observably redundant; 'Boru' is already contained in his/her signature.

'If anyone could observe events with total/absolute accuracy, that person would probably get nobel prize.'

Whoopsy.

Get a bit of silliness in your life, Jordan.  Do you a world of good.  

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is observably redundant; 'Boru' is already contained in his/her signature.

'If anyone could observe events with total/absolute accuracy, that person would probably get nobel prize.'

Whoopsy.  

Get a bit of silliness in your life, Jordan.  Do you a world of good.  

Boru

Odd how someone who preaches the gospel of observation should have such an obvious blind spot.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

It is observably redundant; 'Boru' is already contained in his/her signature.

'If anyone could observe events with total/absolute accuracy, that person would probably get nobel prize.'

Whoopsy.  

Get a bit of silliness in your life, Jordan.  Do you a world of good.  

Boru

Would you care to explain the whoopsy?



Something to keep in mind:
Nowhere did I state that the observation of your redundant signature was of absolute nature.
As I prior stated, life appears to persist in the domain of probabilities.


Furthermore, recall that probabilities don't necessarily imply nonsense.

Probabilities are observed to give rise to life, and the sequences of particles of computers that comprise your post are demonstrably of probabilistic nature.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Happy to. It indicates a conflict in your loopy worldview. You're constantly railing that nothing is perfectly observable, yet you claim that the silliness of my signature is observable.

You may now proceed with your nutty double talk in a futile effort to get yourself out of this predicament.

Boru the Silly

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Happy to. It indicates a conflict in your loopy worldview. You're constantly railing that nothing is perfectly observable, yet you claim that the silliness of my signature is observable.

You may now proceed with your nutty double talk in a futile effort to get yourself out of this predicament.

Boru the Silly

So, it is as predicted.

Here is a meme that fits your behaviour:



Simply, anyway, as I stated prior, I had not stated that your duplicate signature was absolutely silly, but instead, that it was silly.

You appeared to ignore my prior post, so here it is once more:

Something to keep in mind:
NOWHERE DID I STATE THAT THE OBSERVATION OF YOUR REDUNDANT SIGNATURE WAS OF ABSOLUTE NATURE.

As I prior stated, life appears to persist in the domain of probabilities.



Furthermore, recall that probabilities don't necessarily imply nonsense.

Probabilities are observed to give rise to life, and the sequences of particles of computers that comprise your post are demonstrably of probabilistic nature.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think I see. Your claim is not that my signature is absolutely silly but only probabilistically silly. But inherent in this claim, is that my signature has an equal chance of being probabilistically non-silly, as well as non-redundant and non-worthless.

Without resorting to multiple colors and a bewildering of font sizes, are you prepared to admit that your flat statements about my signature previously expressed are uncertain and silly ?

Boru