Topic: Bobby2sox is the new Negi
+Anonymous A — 12.2 years ago #36,112
Both have been enraged by the Doctor
+Anonymous B — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later[T] [B] #409,005
inb4 Hefford.
+Anonymous C — 12.2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #409,007
@OP
But The Doctor hasn't shown his latent homosexuality toward Boddy2sox by spamming pictures of his penis, so they clearly can't be the same.
But The Doctor hasn't shown his latent homosexuality toward Boddy2sox by spamming pictures of his penis, so they clearly can't be the same.
+Syntax — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,018
Wots so weird is Bobby6Sux told me he n Doc get along ok. (I R not kidding)
Perhaps he may be a tad Autistic?
Perhaps he may be a tad Autistic?
+Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,026
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,027
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 50 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,032
+Murray !XONm83jaIU — 12.2 years ago, 49 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,034
·Syntax — 12.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,035
@409,026 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)hummmmmmm very odd indeed indeed.
So Doc calls you the P Word and You say there is nothing wrong with him calling you such.
Interesting very interesting. I suspect you will see me saying more on this over tyme.
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,044
@previous (Syntax )
What a really silly old man you are. I would have thought you would have learned to differentiate by now.
> Interesting very interesting. I suspect you will see me saying more on this over tyme.
More self important pontification from the all seeing, all knowing Oracle of Swamis beach
What a really silly old man you are. I would have thought you would have learned to differentiate by now.
> Interesting very interesting. I suspect you will see me saying more on this over tyme.
More self important pontification from the all seeing, all knowing Oracle of Swamis beach
+Anonymous G — 12.2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,046
@OP
Who's the new Bobby2Sox then?
Who's the new Bobby2Sox then?
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,048
·Syntax — 12.2 years ago, 44 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,052
@409,044 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)@409,044 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)
Remember I took Logic 101
Deductive argument
1. All As are Bs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore, all As are Cs
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 24 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,057
@previous (Syntax )
Deductive argument
In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises assures the truth of the conclusion, and the falsity of it is impossible.. Mathematics is a deductive axiomatic system, since it is based on axioms. If we take the commonly used example, then we can see what we mean:
1. All footballs are balls.
2. All balls are physical objects.
3. Therefore, all footballs are physical objects.
We might review this argument as:
1. All As are Bs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore, all As are Cs
Now, we might take (1) and (2) as axioms. In this case, (3) logically follows from (1) and (2). If (1) and (2) are true, then it must be the case that (3) is also true. And, that is all that a deductive argument proposes.
Easy innit!!! lol
Deductive argument
In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises assures the truth of the conclusion, and the falsity of it is impossible.. Mathematics is a deductive axiomatic system, since it is based on axioms. If we take the commonly used example, then we can see what we mean:
1. All footballs are balls.
2. All balls are physical objects.
3. Therefore, all footballs are physical objects.
We might review this argument as:
1. All As are Bs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore, all As are Cs
Now, we might take (1) and (2) as axioms. In this case, (3) logically follows from (1) and (2). If (1) and (2) are true, then it must be the case that (3) is also true. And, that is all that a deductive argument proposes.
Easy innit!!! lol
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,060
CRIPPLE FIGHT!·Syntax — 12.2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,062
@409,057 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)
Wot the fuck if your conclusion don't follow premises of origins... Your argument is BOGUS.
True or Not True is perhaps the Question.
My Arguments are mostly valid nor is this a Digital Ones Zeros kinda thing - There is wiggle room in the world of Analogs.
And remember there are multiple proofs that 2+2=5 and many of those proofs are valid. AND AND - With String Theory is just possible that the only valid addition of 2+2 is always less or always more then 4 with of course one small exception of little value.
Wot the fuck if your conclusion don't follow premises of origins... Your argument is BOGUS.
True or Not True is perhaps the Question.
My Arguments are mostly valid nor is this a Digital Ones Zeros kinda thing - There is wiggle room in the world of Analogs.
And remember there are multiple proofs that 2+2=5 and many of those proofs are valid. AND AND - With String Theory is just possible that the only valid addition of 2+2 is always less or always more then 4 with of course one small exception of little value.
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 13 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,100
@previous (Syntax )
......Now, we might take (1) and (2) as axioms. In this case, (3) logically follows from (1) and (2). IF (1) and (2) are true, then it must be the case that (3) is also true.
......Now, we might take (1) and (2) as axioms. In this case, (3) logically follows from (1) and (2). IF (1) and (2) are true, then it must be the case that (3) is also true.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,101
·Anonymous B — 12.2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,103
@409,100 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)
1) Faggots love dick.
2) Bobby2Sox loves dick.
3) Therefore, all Bobby2Sox's are faggots.
1) Faggots love dick.
2) Bobby2Sox loves dick.
3) Therefore, all Bobby2Sox's are faggots.
·Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #409,104
@previous (B)
Lol
20 - 20 = 0
25 - 25 = 0
20 - 20 = 25 - 25
4 x (5 - 5) = 5 x (5 - 5)
4 = 5
2 x 2 = 5
Lol
20 - 20 = 0
25 - 25 = 0
20 - 20 = 25 - 25
4 x (5 - 5) = 5 x (5 - 5)
4 = 5
2 x 2 = 5
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 12.2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,105
+Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,150
@409,101 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)
@409,104 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)
Do it again without dividing by zero, bitch!
@409,104 (Bobby2Sox !!VT4kBE4sR)
Do it again without dividing by zero, bitch!
+Anonymous K — 12.2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,152
+Anonymous L — 12.2 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,159
Sure is nerd in here.(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,161
·Anonymous K — 12.2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,163
+Anonymous M — 12.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,164
Bobby2cox
·Anonymous J — 12.2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,216
+Anonymous N — 12.2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #409,217
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.