That's not the same at all as what you said. It's the Exact Opposite. I quote: "It rejects information because of the source or the manner of presentation rather than content." Tell me truthfully, have you been at the Royal Jelly again? Answer in the form of a parp.

You have said before that you are two. And I have said “Collaborate if you will in producing your character. The project might even attract me if he were not so obnoxious. It’s a fine fantasy you have, but for god’s sake, read the others’ posts. It’s like talking to an Alzheimer’s victim who may or may not remember our last conversation.” It’s rather boring having to repeat myself just because you two can’t collaborate. Have you had a tiff? As disgusted as I am with the mess you’ve made of this conversation, I’ll answer your most recent question by saying that I’d listen even to your race of Liars, silly as they seem. And another thing: Your race of Liars really cannot communicate in any practical way. Here’s why. In the example we have used, you finally discover that the Liar had snails for breakfast rather eggs as he said. Your next question, if you are normal, will be “Why?” since eating snails for breakfast seems irregular to you. I doubt you will ever find the reason, but should you discover that he had snails because they were the only things in his fridge, lunchtime will have passed and your reason, if you are normal, for asking – because you might invite your friend to lunch – will have become mute. At that point you would say something like, “Excellent choice,” by which the Liar would assume you mean, “Eating snails is like eating a colossal mound of elephant shit,” which is what you have turned this conversation into.

There are two -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.s in this discussion. Look at the IP addresses to find out which is which. And for the second time, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE LYING IS CONVENIENT MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. I merely pointed out that if two Liars WANT to communicate, they can very easily do so by simple negation: "What did you have for breakfast?" "I didn't have scrambled eggs"; and if they don't want to communicate, i.e. they are actively trying to deceive eachother, then the alphabetical method would work. All this is entirely academic anyway because even if they couldn't communicate, so what? Rocks don't communicate and they exist. Loners don't communicate and they exist. And the fact that we have now established that Liars could communicate doesn't mean they do exist, or would ever exist. In fact, it doesn't fucking matter either way. It was just a hypothetical example. If I said to you "What would you do about the Catholic Church's stance on contraception if you were Pope?" you'd probably say "I'd never be Pope because I'm a woman." Saying "Liars wouldn't exist because they can't communicate" is not a reasonable answer to the question "If there were a race of Liars, would it be closed minded to reject the propositions they spouted?"

Colsed minded people refuse to consider content that conflicts with what they already believe. That's another way of saying what I said. I did not miss it. Can you think of a question someday that does not follow the unanserable pattern of "You've never understood anything properly in your entire life, have you?"? Then after the person grudgingly complies and gives some kind of an answer, you say they did not properly answer your question.

Answered above.

I already agreed that it would. Why don't you read my answers before asking the same question again? I said the process would become too cumbersome for daily conversation. When someone says, "I had eggs for breakfast," it would take you an hour or more to discover that the liar really had snails. And why are your four examples of questions only the the negation type after we already agreed that those type of questions are no problem?

It's "It's"

What can I say other than I've improved alot in since high school(When this was written). <3 Jason