Yes terrorist. Anyone wearing a symbol of perhaps the most painful form of execution ever devised might be wearing dynamite.

Yes, but Premise 1 is impossible because no real valve leaks as much water when it is closed as when it is open, else we must redefine the word "valve." Likewise Premise 2 fails. Sorry, but I only wish to discuss possibilkities. Why did you change zodiac from chode to dim?

Yes, but Premise 1 is impossible in reality because no closed valve leaks as much water as an open valve of the same kind, else we must redefine what a valve is. Likewise Premise 2 fails. Sorry, but I only wish to discuss possibilities. Is "chode" in style now? "toad" perhaps.

Yes, and I shall defend that as well. Premiss: For any possible open valve O, there is a possible closed but leaky valve L, which lets through exactly as much water as O. Premiss: For any possible closed valve C, there is a possible open but blocked valve B, which lets through exactly as much water as C. Therefore: The set of open valves lets through, collectively, exactly as much water as the set of closed valves. Corollary: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water. Your confused because your thinking of the set of *actual* valves, and mistakenly inferring things about closed-valvedness in general. Zodiac is a dim.

passe

That's the same as saying as much water goes through a closed valve as through an open one. And "dim" is pase - zodiac said so.

If you show me some isolated case where open mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth or closed mindedness aids the entrance of truth it does not defeat the argument.

You plainly haven't understood the consequences -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. Let M be any mind. Then the Theorem states: There is a closed mind C, which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as M. Corollary: For any open mind O which does not "inhibit the entrance of truth", there is a closed mind C which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as O, and therefore also does not "inhibit the entrance of truth". Corollary: The set of closed minds is exactly as accepting of the truth as the set of open minds. Corollary: Closed-mindedness does not inhibit the entrance of truth. Corollary: You're a dim.

Simple sentence: closed mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth. Definitions of truth are not the issue; that's a big subject of its own. Please, let's not debate what a mind is, or whether truth is good, or what propositions are. Will you please stay on one subject.

Let me simplify it for you: Closed mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth.

Consider me enwoodened.

The concept of positing something, and then defending it without positing all sorts of other things willy-nilly, is quite, quite unknown to you.

You objected to -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. I've rebutted your objection. That's what.

Now fathead.

You started this by making some overblown claim that open-mindedness brings truth whereas closed mindedness prevents the bringing of truth. I do not have to prove the efficacy of one over the other just provide a counter-argument that there are aspects of closed mindedness that bring about truth. This is sufficient to prove you wrong.

I think you are too bumbling to write a precise sentence. The reason for all the speculation is that noeone knows what you are going on about. What the hell is 'truth' you keep referencing. What is an open mind. What is a closed mind. What is a mind. Where is the base unit of truth that allows truth to exist independantly of unproven propositions. Is truth good. Is truth useful if you can not recognise it. Jesus. How can I accept what you say when you are not saying anything.

'Tis a way to look at it, isn't it?

May the durrty south boyzs Baseball team beat the pants off the lily-clean north gurls team. No, wait while I rephrase that.