The important phrase is that "any proposition that can be shown to be self-contradictory does not exist"
But how can you be sure that all elements of the proposition are contradictory? It's only you that insists they are with your weird synopses. It has now been established that MMY did not rape Mia Farrow. No one here was suggesting that, that was you quoting someone else. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 4/7/2014 10:43 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Any proposition that is self-contradictory does not exist. It's pretty much agreed that MMY did not rape Mia Farrow. There's nothing like the cross examine. I'll ignore Richard's obvious troll bait and focus on the highlighted phrase above. It's perfect, to describe the 'tude that a number of the confrontation junkies have on this forum. It's like they believe they are prosecutors in some cosmic court of law (or Laws Of Nature), and thus have the right to say anything they want about the people they're trying to "best" to challenge (and demean) their credibility. That alone is kinda weird, but the kicker is that they honestly seem to believe that the people they're trying to troll *have* to reply, so that they can extend the "cross examination." > The important phrase is that "any proposition that can be shown to be self-contradictory does not exist". This phrase should be followed by "all propositions are self-contradictory." If a proposition is self-contradictory then it follows that the thing does not exist. And, since there's no physical evidence, the proposition is just a rumor in the first place. The part about the cross examine is that MMY is dead and Judith Bourque isn't here to tell us exactly what happened. So, the case is closed unless somebody else has an objection. It has now been established that MMY did not rape Mia Farrow. Go figure.
