I have advanced my arguments past all other arguments for over 150 pages of dialouge here and on badscience. There simply has been no rebuttal against OS 012 that has not been shown to contain contradictions to reality.
Well "past them" in the sense that you're still prepared to spout your nonsense beyond the stage that others' arguments have shown it to be rubbish.
you think the question stumps me, so therefore, you are looking a for a certain answer in my response.
Er yes, I was actually looking for an answer in your response, rather than just random key-mashing. Are you going to argue that you've somehow answered the question specifically by not answering (NB, standard usage of "not" there).
You assume it must be in my response because you model it in your mind a certain way. And now you are getting upset that objective reality is not providing you with the evidence of your magical thinking.
What, you mean evidence that you've actually answered the question? Yes, that's what I was hoping for.
Originally Posted by
Mojo 
Where is the subjective component in the statement "Angelina Jolie is a woman"?
The observation of Angelina Jolie.
So that's the subjective component then.
The subjective component is 0.
What, "zero"? You mean there is no subjective component?
Funnily enough Bubb, I know what you mean
despite the fact that you've still not explained your system, and you never will. You're saying that the statement has a subjective component because it is made by someone, you may even be saying that nobody will know whether it is true or not if they don't look at AJ. But that doesn't change the fact that AJ
is a woman and remains so even if nobody has made that statement. So the truth of the statement i.e., it's relationship to reality, which is what Mojo was asking you about, has no subjective component at all.
I'm quite bored now and tired from simultaneously flogging the dead horse that is Bubb and shooting Bubblefish in a barrel, all very tedious.
