Will Songs of Praise be replaced by an Imams call to prayer?

[looney]

I thought - no, I know - I said f*** off.

Are you so THICK as to not understand? Oh, yes you are.

well excuse me ya babbling Shit Kibble for thinking you were just crying cos you lost another arguement. Yep I was right again.

So no antidote to stupidity yet then? Bad luck The Dumb one, if you actually read my posts that may help, i doubt it as your oviosly into books were your encouraged to colour in the pictures but who knows?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Just out of interest, why should I be gentle with you when you have just wished me dead?

Which one are you Juan?

 

[looney]

ha ha ha. half an hour busy googling and this the best you can come up with?

Wittgenstein and Russell members of the Vienna circle? Utter bollocks - they were influenced by Wittgenstein who was influenced by Russell but then rejected his empiricism for a more holistic and somewhat mystical approach to philosophy. Nobber.

As for my quote...it comes from the link above it. People who spend all their working lives studying write these things. Not fuckwits like you who spend their time drooling into their laps....and where did I say that Popper was a member of that group?

...and who was the leading light and founder of the Chicago school? That's right...Friedman.

Guess who's gonna be spending the next few hours desparately googling trying to come back with spurious arguments?

That's right! You!

Could you explain what kind of influence Wittgenstien and Russel could have on a Physisist like Popper?

Yep done enough study to run rings round a Google warrior like you shortstuff. Probably starting my PhD in the Spring.

But anyway, your wrong now slowley come to terms with this.

 

[The Large One]

well excuse me ya babbling Shit Kibble for thinking you were just crying cos you lost another arguement. Yep I was right again.

So no antidote to stupidity yet then? Bad luck The Dumb one, if you actually read my posts that may help, i doubt it as your oviosly into books were your encouraged to colour in the pictures but who knows?

I've lost no argument with you. I have never lost an argument with you, nor will I ever lose an argument with you. It is just not possible - that much is plain. I cannot help it if you don't understand that.

Secondly, I have the wit and sense of reasoning about me to know recognise stupidity when I see it - you don't even have the minerals for that. So when you loosely band about phrases like 'you are dumb' etc, it shows you have no inkling of what you are talking about. In other words, you are too stupid to know what stupid is.

Now f*** off.

I am sick of trading insults with a pig-eyed sack of shit.


























































BTW Buzzer owns your arse. You sorry f***.

 

[The Large One]

Probably starting my PhD in the Spring.

I could have sworn basic literacy would be a pre-requisite for becoming a doctor.

Messeiurs et mesdames, je vous presente Dr Looney of ****...

 

[tedebear]

I could have sworn basic literacy would be a pre-requisite for becoming a doctor.

Strangely enough I've just read this thread and the only thing I have concluded from the whole sorry mess, is that you can't argue for toffee when you can't spell and haven't a grasp of grammar to save your life....

So, TLO we agree!!

 

[looney]

I'll say one thing for you Buzzer, you seem a bit smarter than enigma although just as emotionally immature.

Its going to be fun educating you.

 

[looney]

Strangely enough I've just read this thread and the only thing I have concluded from the whole sorry mess, is that you can't argue for toffee when you can't spell and haven't a grasp of grammar to save your life....

So, TLO we agree!!

Oh well your in fine company then with Oddbod. Oh and you wont get far in life if you cantr read past a few spelling mistakes.

 

[The Large One]

Oh well your in fine company then with Oddbod. Oh and you wont get far in life if you cantr read past a few spelling mistakes.

You'll get nowhere if you keep making spelling mistakes.

 

[Buzzer]

Could you explain what kind of influence Wittgenstien and Russel could have on a Physisist like Popper?

Yep done enough study to run rings round a Google warrior like you shortstuff. Probably starting my PhD in the Spring.

But anyway, your wrong now slowley come to terms with this.

Page 494 of Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein...

On 26 October a clash occurred when Karl Popper addressed the club on the question "Are there philosophical problems" Popper's chosen subject , and his manner of addressing it, was deliberately designed to provoke Wittgenstein (whom Popper thought denied the existence of philosophical questions)...

You're just unlucky today, Looney , as I'm re-reading this on the train to work at present so have it to hand.

And by the way, Popper was a philosopher. A f***ing good one.

And you are an amateur. A f***ing poor one.

 

[tedebear]

Oh well your in fine company then with Oddbod. Oh and you wont get far in life if you cantr read past a few spelling mistakes.

Well you obviously know very little about me!

 

[Man of Harveys]

Attempts to sound intelligent by name-dropping Wittgenstein and Popper whilst writing sentences like "But anyway, your wrong now slowley come to terms with this." suggest, to put it mildly, someone attempting to run before they can walk. Take a better book to the next scout camp, Loonster. And try to get some sleep next time.

 

[Buzzer]

Oy Looney.

You've gone very quiet all of a sudden. Do hope it wasn't something we said.

 

[looney]

Page 494 of Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein...

On 26 October a clash occurred when Karl Popper addressed the club on the question "Are there philosophical problems" Popper's chosen subject , and his manner of addressing it, was deliberately designed to provoke Wittgenstein (whom Popper thought denied the existence of philosophical questions)...

You're just unlucky today, Looney , as I'm re-reading this on the train to work at present so have it to hand.

And by the way, Popper was a philosopher. A f***ing good one.

And you are an amateur. A f***ing poor one.

what club was that? And what year?

Oh I know well what I speak about junior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle

No sign of popper there.

Popper first studied maths and physics which led him to write The Logic of Scientific Discovery. For which as any fool know you would need a science background to do. He then went on to philosophy when he fled Austria from the nazis. writing the Open Soc etc.

Oh and popper used to hold debates with Bertrund Russel when he came down to the LSE from Cambridge.

I'll say again.

Popper was not an economist. He trained in Physics.

Popper was not a member of the veinna circle.

 

[Buzzer]

Moral Science Club, 1946

Oh dear. Finally admitted that all your knowledge is gained from quick glances at Wikipedia.

Let me spell it out. I NEVER SAID POPPER WAS IN THE VIENNA CIRCLE/SCHOOL. I NEVER SAID HE WAS AN ECONOMIST. IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE WERE HAVING.

Oh, I get you now. You've seen the quote from Ray Monk's book and because you're an ignorant fuckwit and there isn't an online copy of the book on the web you assume that the 'club' refers to the Vienna Circle. Oh no, unfortunately for you, you asked how Witts and Russell could have influenced Popper and I pointed out to you a direct quote from the definitive biography of Wittgenstein.

It's the Moral Science Club and proves irrefutably that Popper was influenced by Witts. If a man spends enough time arguing to write papers refuting philosophical points of another philosopher I'd say that that was having an influence.

Yes, he trained in Physics. Big Deal. Go back to Wikipedia and look up Karl Popper and I bet you that it describes him first and foremost as a philosopher. I am so sure of this that I'm resisting the chance to check. In the same way that Tony Blair trained as a lawyer but is most definitely a politician.

And I'll state again that Popper was an economist in the same way that Marx was. They were philosophers who asked the big questions about how society should conduct itself. You acknowledge yourself from your quick scan of Wikipedia that he was a professor at the London School of Economics!

And what the f*** is holding beates?

So, looks like it's back to Wikipedia for you then.

 

[Buzzer]

oh and by the way....

Try looking up the infamous poker incident on google between Witts and Popper. Should save you a bit of time as you try to flounder off on a tangential argument that is irrelevant as it is spurious.

Have fun.

 

[looney]

I didn't assume you implied.

me: Could you explain what kind of influence Wittgenstien and Russel could have on a Physisist like Popper?


you: Page 494 of Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein...

On 26 October a clash occurred when Karl Popper addressed the club on the question "Are there philosophical problems" Popper's chosen subject , and his manner of addressing it, was deliberately

This you reveal was in 1946. Well after Popper had formulated his veiws on an open Society.

This is just one of your many examples of muddling concepts and events.

I dont need wiki or Google, ive read well over half of Poppers books, papers and Auto biography. He catergoricly rejects wittginstien. In his Biography theres quite a lot about his debates at the LSE with Russel.

Ive read most of Hayeks books and papers as well.
Ive read most of Marxes as well including Das Kapital, which is an economic text.

your original post refered to the above as well as De Torquville and another as main lazy Fair thinkers.

This has turned out to be at best stretching all credability.

I enjoy reading, even Michael Moores crap. Your grasp of Economic Epistomology is at best sketchy.

May I suggest you start with Mandeville and Adam Smith then work your way forward. You may get up to date in a few years.

 

[El Presidente]

Once your 20 or so unemployed no life mates have voted for you I'll eclipse your total easily when the busier employed intelligent people get back from work.

Do boy scouts go to work?

 

[Buzzer]

I didn't assume you implied.

me: Could you explain what kind of influence Wittgenstien and Russel could have on a Physisist like Popper?


you: Page 494 of Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein...

On 26 October a clash occurred when Karl Popper addressed the club on the question "Are there philosophical problems" Popper's chosen subject , and his manner of addressing it, was deliberately

This you reveal was in 1946. Well after Popper had formulated his veiws on an open Society.

This is just one of your many examples of muddling concepts and events.

I dont need wiki or Google, ive read well over half of Poppers books, papers and Auto biography. He catergoricly rejects wittginstien. In his Biography theres quite a lot about his debates at the LSE with Russel.

Ive read most of Hayeks books and papers as well.
Ive read most of Marxes as well including Das Kapital, which is an economic text.

your original post refered to the above as well as De Torquville and another as main lazy Fair thinkers.

This has turned out to be at best stretching all credability.

I enjoy reading, even Michael Moores crap. Your grasp of Economic Epistomology is at best sketchy.

May I suggest you start with Mandeville and Adam Smith then work your way forward. You may get up to date in a few years.

*sigh*

I've just typed and deleted a huge section of text on this because I can't be arsed to argue any further with someone who can't even google their answers very well.

I've blown away every argument you've come up with. I've introduced you to concepts, ideas and thinkers that you have never heard of before. Unfortunately you are light years away from understanding them. You have time and again proven your ignorance and immaturity. You've shown yourself up to be a fool of the highest order.

I feel very sorry for you as you seem to live in this fantasy world where you are king and you variously have 2 phds, 2 economics degrees, you have read marx, hayek, popper, wittgenstein are off to do further phds yet seem unable to construct logical flowing arguments that are pertinent, stay relevant, pithy and well-formed.

No doubt in your mind you have a gorgeous supermodel girlfriend, a 12 inch cock and earn a six figure salary in your spare time.

I really don't mean to be patronising but please, get a grip on yourself. Come back to the real world. It really isn't that scary and you might just like it.

 

[looney]

*sigh*


I've blown away every argument you've come up with. I've introduced you to concepts, ideas and thinkers that you have never heard of before.

you did nothing. You refered to 4 philosophers of which one was also a 20th century economist wrt a 19th century economic trade arguement.
From there you just went further down hill.


You got owned, accept it, deal with it and move on.

As I said 99% couldn't hang on a political or economicly focused site and your obviously in the 99%.