Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Giuseppe Bilotta (bilotta78_at_hotpop.com)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: String Theory and Letterman"
- Previous message: bz: "Re: Large Water Barometer"
- In reply to: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:52:31 +0100
Albert Wagner wrote:
> Ooooooo! *Shiver* numbers. Well, that settles it. Without
> acknowledging *shiver* numbers, how could I possibly define
> 'infinite'? LOL.
Very funny, and one more sidestep. I'll give give you the
wriggly easy way out: it's spelt Tolstoij, in Latin letters,
usually.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: String Theory and Letterman"
- Previous message: bz: "Re: Large Water Barometer"
- In reply to: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
