Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are persons here that miss the fact that results that are based on maths, are done by aware people.

Deeper their awareness is, better their results are (whether they are used by aware or on unaware people).

So, no one can escape from the technology of mind development, where my framework is an example of such technology, where its fundamental result is the unification among the objective (the non-local) and the subjective (the local) as explained, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9818569&postcount=3517.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There are persons here that miss the fact that results that are based on maths, are done by aware people.
Click to expand...

Nothing is missed, doron. You are aware, right? You also have all the skillz, right? Why can't you produce results? Is it because you're incompetent and your so-called "work" is a bunch of unintelligible, inconsistent, contradictory, useless hogwash? You've certainly provided ample evidence for that.
 
doronshadmi said:
Realpaladin, the objectivity of the tool is its non-local level, and by using the abstract aspect of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning in one's mind, we get a comprehensive framework that consistently links the non-local and objective aspect of one's mind with the local and subjective aspect of one's mind.

The result of this link is a one unified realm, which is free from contradictions that are derived from the current dichotomy between the objective and the subjective.

Organic Mathematics fundamental result is the consistent linkage between the objective and the subjective, which is actually the natural state of mind of any healthy human being on this planet.

This unification in one's mind can't be achieved as long as he\she uses only his\her subjective (local) aspect of his\her mind.

One of the main obstacles to achieve real unity is the a partial use of one's mind ,which is derived from the dichotomy between the abstract verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills in one's mind.

As long as one's mind works under this dichotomy, no results of the unification between the subjective and the objective are known and actually used day-by-day by this dichotomous mind.

The paradigm-shift is actually the transition from the dichotomous realm into the unified real among the objective and the subjective, and this unification is the most important result, where this result is actually the foundation of any further development (abstract or non-abstract) of creatures like us.

You and your friends still miss it, and as a result, you are unaware of the results of the unification among the objective and the subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite so. Again a long-winded way of saying: "Realpaladin, you are right, since nobody is aware of the results, it is of use to nobody."

The pearls of wisdom that are thrown before the swine that is Doron are lost in the muck that is his language skills....


Ok, Doron, I understand your argument. So, let's do a thought experiment then. I know you are able to do those, so here it is:

  • Let's say we have two completely separated islands (no contact is ever made), with two separate colonies (they never know about each other).
  • On one island (call it island A) live only people that understand Doronetics/OM
  • On the other island (let's call it island B) live people who will never see or be aware of anything that Doronetics/OM can bring
  • Let's leave these islands to develop a culture for a while (100 years? 1000 years?)
  • After that time of complete separation, a discoverer (like Columbus, or Darwin) visits these islands. He is unaware of Doronetics/OM and can not get it.

What is the difference he will see? How will island A differ from island B?
 
"A bunch of unintelligible, inconsistent, contradictory, useless hogwash" etc., are some examples of the results of a mind that is unaware of the unification between non-locality (his\her objective mind aspect) and locality (his\her subjective mind aspect).

Such a mind does his\her best in order to exclude himself\herself as a result of his\her level of awareness.
 
doronshadmi said:
"A bunch of unintelligible, inconsistent, contradictory, useless hogwash" etc., are some examples of the results of a mind that is unaware of the unification between non-locality (his\her objective mind aspect) and locality (his\her subjective mind aspect).

Such a mind does his\her best in order to exclude himself\herself as a result of his\her level of awareness.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all agree there is, at the moment, only 1 mind in the world that can do what you say OM does.

So could you please answer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9818786&postcount=3523

Or will you only answer in evasive terms?
 
realpaladin said:
Yes, quite so. Again a long-winded way of saying: "Realpaladin, you are right, since nobody is aware of the results, it is of use to nobody."

The pearls of wisdom that are thrown before the swine that is Doron are lost in the muck that is his language skills....


Ok, Doron, I understand your argument. So, let's do a thought experiment then. I know you are able to do those, so here it is:

  • Let's say we have two completely separated islands (no contact is ever made), with two separate colonies (they never know about each other).
  • On one island (call it island A) live only people that understand Doronetics/OM
  • On the other island (let's call it island B) live people who will never see or be aware of anything that Doronetics/OM can bring
  • Let's leave these islands to develop a culture for a while (100 years? 1000 years?)
  • After that time of complete separation, a discoverer (like Columbus, or Darwin) visits these islands. He is unaware of Doronetics/OM and can not get it.

What is the difference he will see? How will island A differ from island B?
Click to expand...
Since the people of island A have the ability to get things beyond island A (because their mind is the unity among the non-local (objective) and the local (subjective)), they reach to island B and teach the people of island B how to reach the land of the "discoverer", before this "discoverer" reaches islands A and B.

Now also the people of the land of the "discoverer" know how to reach new lands, etc. etc.

All is done without wars, where peace, harmony and deep curiosity to life forms are characteristics of these travels.
 
doronshadmi said:
Since the people of island A have the ability to get things beyond island A (because their mind is the unity among the non-local (objective) and the local (subjective)), they reach to island B and teach the people of island B how to reach the land of the "discoverer", before this "discoverer" reaches islands A and B.

Now also the people of the land of the "discoverer" know how to reach new lands, etc. etc.

All is done without wars, where peace, harmony and deep curiosity to life forms are characteristics of these travels.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. You can not do thought experiments.

But to make sure you understand the 'they never make contact' let's add the following:

- If they ever make contact, the people from island B die in horrible pain and a secret atomic bomb planted by Xenu will go off and the island will cease to exist. Since the people from island A will know this, they can never make contact.
 
realpaladin said:
I stand corrected. You can not do thought experiments.

But to make sure you understand the 'they never make contact' let's add the following:

- If they ever make contact, the people from island B die in horrible pain and a secret atomic bomb planted by Xenu will go off and the island will cease to exist. Since the people from island A will know this, they can never make contact.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your thought experiment (which is an example of a mind that has no understanding of the unity among the non-local (objective) and the local (subjective)).

Only good things will happen to the people of island B by meeting people from island A.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I disagree with your thought experiment (which is an example of a mind that has no understanding of the unity among the non-local (objective) and the local (subjective)).

Only good things will happen to the people of island B by meeting people from island A.
Click to expand...

Like all the good things that came from your 10000+ posts. Not a single one.

On the other hand, you know what would happen? People from island A would get clobbered to death in hours.

B: Hi foreigner! Welcome to our humble island. We don't have much, but there's food, shelter and you're our guest!
A: Thank you. I've come to help you! I have skillz!
B: That's nice, thanks. We welcome any progress!
A: We are the bringers of world peace and ethics and stuff! And maths! Don't forget the maths!
B: Nice! Show me something! All I got is this club I use for hunting and stuff. I could use something better!
A: Well you see, locality and non-locality, there is no set that is identical to itself!!1
B: Huh?! What do you mean? That's nonsense! How do I use that?
A: You mind has no understanding of these complicated matters! Bow to me puny animal! I am awesome! I can use underscores!
B: OK, OK. Just show me something real! Something I can use. Please! I want to learn!
A: See, the unity of awareness and <snipped gibberish>
B: I can't use any of that! That's gibberish! See this club? This is real and I can use it to feed myself, my family and to defend myself!
A: But your mind has no unders.... BAAANG! SWOOOSH! SPLORK!
B: Yum! Even though he was an utter idiot, his brain matter tastes just fine! Gotta get me some more of that. Should not be too hard, these morons just stand around all day chanting locality, unity, mind. I don't even know how they survived. Well, not for long... :D
 
laca said:
Like all the good things that came from your 10000+ posts. Not a single one.

On the other hand, you know what would happen? People from island A would get clobbered to death in hours.

B: Hi foreigner! Welcome to our humble island. We don't have much, but there's food, shelter and you're our guest!
A: Thank you. I've come to help you! I have skillz!
B: That's nice, thanks. We welcome any progress!
A: We are the bringers of world peace and ethics and stuff! And maths! Don't forget the maths!
B: Nice! Show me something! All I got is this club I use for hunting and stuff. I could use something better!
A: Well you see, locality and non-locality, there is no set that is identical to itself!!1
B: Huh?! What do you mean? That's nonsense! How do I use that?
A: You mind has no understanding of these complicated matters! Bow to me puny animal! I am awesome! I can use underscores!
B: OK, OK. Just show me something real! Something I can use. Please! I want to learn!
A: See, the unity of awareness and <snipped gibberish>
B: I can't use any of that! That's gibberish! See this club? This is real and I can use it to feed myself, my family and to defend myself!
A: But your mind has no unders.... BAAANG! SWOOOSH! SPLORK!
B: Yum! Even though he was an utter idiot, his brain matter tastes just fine! Gotta get me some more of that. Should not be too hard, these morons just stand around all day chanting locality, unity, mind. I don't even know how they survived. Well, not for long... :D
Click to expand...

I wonder a lot why I spend time on this thread.. this post is a perfect example for the primary reason: Top notch entertainment!!!!
 
doronshadmi said:
I disagree with your thought experiment (which is an example of a mind that has no understanding of the unity among the non-local (objective) and the local (subjective)).

Only good things will happen to the people of island B by meeting people from island A.
Click to expand...

Doron, as IACA has pointed out graphically (and to me, quite humorously), you have pinpointed the exact problem with this thought experiment.

You did not have to agree to it at all; if *you*, the current most eminent expert in the world on OM, can not even teach one single person, not even people that have stuck with you over more than 7 years and over 10000 posts, then *how* will anyone else be able to teach anybody else?

*Your* spatial_symbolic skills, *your* understanding of non-local/local unity does not even help *you* to communicate.

And *you* are the ultimate expert in Doronetics....

So, all your mathematical errors aside, isn't it time you realise that your work is not able to move anything but bytes over the Internet (with entertainment as main purpose)?
 
hi, me again.

This is even worse that I thought.

Thinking that I had a comprehension problem, I went back to page 1 of this thread, in the hope that further reading would reveal what this was all about. Instead, I'm now 100% certain that is is another variant of "I have special crackpot maths that only I can understand because you lot lack the skillz".

It's an embarrassment to me that somebody would allegedly spend 30 years of the life to produce so little.

ETA - I asked somewhere upthread what definition was being used for the phrase "visual-spatial reasoning" as this seemed to be at the heart of Doron's special pleading. Still waiting.
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
ETA - I asked somewhere upthread what definition was being used for the phrase "visual-spatial reasoning" as this seemed to be at the heart of Doron's special pleading. Still waiting.
Click to expand...

The beauty of the observation and reasoning ability the rest of us all lack is that definitions are not needed. Meaning is self-evident. This pairs well with Doron's inability to define much of anything.
 
Let's carefully analyze the following:

1. Every set is identical to itself.

2. If two sets are identical (which means that they have the same members) it does not necessarily follows that the amount of their members is the same, in case that they have unbounded amount of members.

3. Therefore a set with unbounded amount of members can be bigger than itself.

Here is the abstract verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial definition of this subject:

M is any possible comparison among sets.

(Program

M :=
Code: 
{1,2,3,4,5,...}
 ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  {1,2,3,4,...}

N := {1,2,3,4,...}

K := {1,2,3,4,...}

...

Call Function Size(M,N,K,J)

(If J=0 THEN |N| > |K|)
(If J=1 THEN |N| < |K|)
(If J=2 THEN |N| = |K|)

...

)

;--------------

Function Size(W,A,B,R) (

(if there is doron-function between A and B of W such that (for each a in A there is at most one b in B) AND (for each b in B there is exactly one a in A) AND (there is at least one a in A that does not have any b in B) then
R := 0
RETURN)

ELSE

(if there is doron-function between A and B of W such that (for each a in A there is exactly one b in B) AND (for each b in B there is at most one a in A) AND (there is at least one b in B that does not have any a in A) then
R := 1
RETURN)

ELSE

(R := 2
RETURN)

This program is a translator between verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial aspects of any possible pairs of sets (including the relations of a given set with itself).

In the case of sets with bounded amount of members, we get the same results as the traditional one.

In the case of sets with unbounded amount of members, we do no get the same results as the traditional one.
 
Last edited:
EDIT:

realpaladin said:
Doron, as IACA has pointed out graphically (and to me, quite humorously), you have pinpointed the exact problem with this thought experiment.

You did not have to agree to it at all; if *you*, the current most eminent expert in the world on OM, can not even teach one single person, not even people that have stuck with you over more than 7 years and over 10000 posts, then *how* will anyone else be able to teach anybody else?

*Your* spatial_symbolic skills, *your* understanding of non-local/local unity does not even help *you* to communicate.

And *you* are the ultimate expert in Doronetics....

So, all your mathematical errors aside, isn't it time you realise that your work is not able to move anything but bytes over the Internet (with entertainment as main purpose)?
Click to expand...
OM was developed for the past 7 years during the rejection of the posters of this forum, and I wish to thank them by being critique in every step during the past 7 years. In my opinion the way to non-entropic realm (the inability of collections to be the non-local and objective realm of actual-infinity) passes through the entropic realm (the current paradigm which defines actual-infinity at the level of collections).

As for your question about island A and B, the discoverer will notice that the diversity of complex relations among the phenomena in island A is derived from one non-local principle, which enables the harmonious conditions at any given scale level of these complex relations.

He will not find this diversity in island B.

realpaladin said:
isn't it time you realise that your work is not able to move anything ...
Click to expand...
Isn't it time you realise that *your* decision not to move anything beyond the current accepted paradigm of the discussed subject, is a factor of your misunderstanding of OM?

Things are really changed first of all from within, and this is exactly the reason of why OM must passes through the entropic realm of the current mathematical paradigm.

No short-cut or by-pass can cause the paradigm-shift, and going through the current paradigm in order to change it from within takes time and it is defiantly not an easy task.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
I wonder a lot why I spend time on this thread.. this post is a perfect example for the primary reason: Top notch entertainment!!!!
Click to expand...

After you enjoy the play that was written by a mind that does his\her best in order to exclude himself\herself as a result of his\her level of awareness, what comes next?
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's carefully analyze the following:

1. Every set is identical to itself.

2. If two sets are identical (which means that they have the same members) it does not necessarily follows that the amount of their members is the same, in case that they have unbounded amount of members.
Click to expand...

That is a useless and retarded "definition". By the way, you'll need to redefine "amount" to make that work. Good luck with that.

3. Therefore a set with unbounded amount of members can be bigger than itself.
Click to expand...

Still waiting to see you try and prove that, but you'll first need to have proper axioms/definitions. How are those coming? Still nothing, after all those years? Pathetic.
 
doronshadmi said:
After you enjoy the play that was written by a mind that does his\her best in order to exclude himself\herself as a result of his\her level of awareness, what comes next?
Click to expand...

Ideally, you would start making sense and showing some results of the work that is so advanced, that nobody except you gets it. Not a problem per se, just show some results. Anything at all, except gibberish posted on an internet forum.
 
doronshadmi said:
As for your question about island A and B, the discoverer will notice that the diversity of complex relations among the phenomena in island A is derived from one non-local principle, which enables the harmonious conditions at any given scale level of these complex relations.
Click to expand...
"Goddamn hippies!" would probably be his first words...

doronshadmi said:
Isn't it time you realise that *your* decision not to move anything beyond the current accepted paradigm of the discussed subject, is a factor of your misunderstanding of OM?
Click to expand...
Probably, my life, and that of the people around me is so much the better for it!

doronshadmi said:
Things are really changed first of all from within, and this is exactly the reason of why OM must passes through the entropic realm of the current mathematical paradigm.

No short-cut or by-pass can cause the paradigm-shift, and going through the current paradigm in order to change it from within takes time and it is defiantly not an easy task.
Click to expand...
I predict that no paradigm shift will occur, that nobody will give a hootenanny about OM after you have withered and passed away and that 'traditional' mathematics will help humanity towards bigger, better and more beautiful things in the future.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let's carefully analyze the following:

<snip>

In the case of sets with unbounded amount of members, we do no get the same results as the traditional one.
Click to expand...

Be careful! Doron is anglerfishing again!

I could call those kind of posts trolling, and I will alert a mod, if he ever does that again.
 
realpaladin said:
I predict that no paradigm shift will occur, that nobody will give a hootenanny about OM after you have withered and passed away and that 'traditional' mathematics will help humanity towards bigger, better and more beautiful things in the future.
Click to expand...
Prediction about OM that is done form one's :boxedin:, is worthless.
 
Last edited:
Hilarious, Doron.

But it will not help you at all.

Btw, there is another logic mistake you made with the islands:

- Either the discoverer sees no difference because he also can not get OM

or

- You have been lying and there *are* visible results, but you can not show them.

What is it?
 
Look, how cute, he found the box smilie! Did you use direct perception to find it, doron?
 
realpaladin said:
Hilarious, Doron.

But it will not help you at all.

Btw, there is another logic mistake you made with the islands:

- Either the discoverer sees no difference because he also can not get OM

or

- You have been lying and there *are* visible results, but you can not show them.

What is it?
Click to expand...
The key word is *discoverer*.

He/she has no problem to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821082&postcount=3535 , unlike you and your friends here, which are stuck in their :boxedin: and crying ":covereyes!"
 
Hmmm.... much as I would like to join the discussion in a more fruitful way, I still haven't received an explanation of what Doron's definition of "visual-spatial reasoning" is, and why it matters.

TO make matters worse, my brain shut down when it tried to make sense of this statement:

2. If two sets are identical (which means that they have the same members) it does not necessarily follows that the amount of their members is the same, in case that they have unbounded amount of members.
Click to expand...

How can you arbitrary redefine the word "identical" to mean "mostly the same but with differences"?
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
I still haven't received an explanation of what Doron's definition of "visual-spatial reasoning" is, and why it matters.
Click to expand...

N = {1,2,3,...}

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| > |N| and vise versa.

As you can see, we are dealing with one and only one set, and by using also visual_spatial reasoning on that set, we are able to understand that since it has unbounded amount of members, this property prevents the accurate value of its size (unlike the case of sets with bounded amount of members, which their size is accurate).

The definition of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, is given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534.

You can't define visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning by using only verbal_symbolic reasoning or only visual_spatial reasoning.

People like jsfisher wish to define visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning only in terms of verbal_symbolic reasoning, and as a result they simply miss definitions of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning, as given, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534.

In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814916&postcount=3488 BenjaminTR thinks that we are unable to deal with the properties of one and only one set, exactly because he does not use visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning in its abstract sense (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9821061&postcount=3534 is an example of how to use visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning in its abstract sense).

For example:
BenjaminTR said:
It has not split or reproduced itself into a domain and a separate codomain.
Click to expand...

In this abstract expression
Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|
there is no separation between domain and codomain

exactly as there is no separation between domain and codomain in the following abstract expression
Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,...}|

but BenjaminTR simply misses it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9814916&postcount=3488.

Again, the new thing here (that is not used by traditional mathematics) is a function without inverse, whether it is used on the same set, or not on the same set.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
N = {1,2,3,...}

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| > |N| and vise versa.

<HYSTERIC VERBIAGE DELETED FOR BREVITY>

visual_spatial reasoning and as a result he misses the abstract aspect of visual_spatial reasoning (he thinks that by using visual_spatial reasoning we are unable to deal with the properties of one and only one set).
Click to expand...

What he actually is saying:

- By 'drawing stuff' and 'shifting stuff to the right' you 'obviously' see that there is a gap.
- The 'obviousness' is the same 'obviousness' in that you draw a 'human being' by drawing a stick-figure.
- Visual-spatial reasoning is just visually moving things about and then saying 'it is clearly shown', but completely ignoring that you now have added unspecified and undefined relations (i.e. the relative positions, distances etc...)

Doron is clearly unaware that by actually doing anything like that, he creates implicit relations and rules that can be described by traditional mathematics and which... *oh gasp* still prove him wrong in the exact same way had he not used visual-spatial reasoning.

He uses his 'drawing' to 'prove' stuff, much like the overunity nutcases use low-friction setups that run for days to 'prove' that perpetuum mobile machines are possible.

Doron Shadmi 'the liar' falls in that same category.
 
doronshadmi said:
N = {1,2,3,...}

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
  |{1,2,3,4,...}|

is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| > |N| and vise versa.
Click to expand...

And here is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| = |N|

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|

Wow. It's so easy to point out errors and fix them.
 
realpaladin said:
What he actually is saying:

- By 'drawing stuff' and 'shifting stuff to the right' you 'obviously' see that there is a gap.
- The 'obviousness' is the same 'obviousness' in that you draw a 'human being' by drawing a stick-figure.
- Visual-spatial reasoning is just visually moving things about and then saying 'it is clearly shown', but completely ignoring that you now have added unspecified and undefined relations (i.e. the relative positions, distances etc...)

Doron is clearly unaware that by actually doing anything like that, he creates implicit relations and rules that can be described by traditional mathematics and which... *oh gasp* still prove him wrong in the exact same way had he not used visual-spatial reasoning.

He uses his 'drawing' to 'prove' stuff, much like the overunity nutcases use low-friction setups that run for days to 'prove' that perpetuum mobile machines are possible.

Doron Shadmi 'the liar' falls in that same category.
Click to expand...
Another post of realpaladin which demonstrates his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

Here is some concrete example of his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning:
realpaladin said:
- Visual-spatial reasoning is just visually moving things about and then saying 'it is clearly shown', but completely ignoring that you now have added unspecified and undefined relations (i.e. the relative positions, distances etc...)
Click to expand...

Once :boxedin:, always :boxedin: (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9823008&postcount=3551 is beyond his :boxedin:).
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
And here is an example of visual_spatial reasoning that can be translated into verbal_symbolic reasoning |N| = |N|

Code: 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|
  ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ ↕ 
|{1,2,3,4,5,...}|

Wow. It's so easy to point out errors and fix them.
Click to expand...

You are still missing my it.

|N| = OR not= |N|, or in other words, |N| is not well-defined.
 
doronshadmi said:
Another post of realpaladin which demonstrates his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning.

Here is some concrete example of his inability to think abstract in terms of visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic reasoning:


Once :boxedin:, always :boxedin:.
Click to expand...

Who gives a flying fark about what you say Doron?

7 years, 10k+ posts, abandoned by sidekicks like Moshe, every little semblance of rigour destroyed by your own posts...

And the best you can come up with is playground texts and things like "you don't get it."

"Error hath a name, it is Doron Shadmi"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom