This Sat at Jeeva's :) On 1 Jan 2015 11:18, "Wynand-Ben" <paashaasggx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sooo > > When is the next session? > > > Back from my little holiday and stuff... starting again on monday :( > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 23:04:26 +0200 > Subject: RE: CTS community mail > From: bmlzote@xxxxxxxxx > To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > I hope you got game because I want a ft5 against you at the session... > On 30 Dec 2014 18:29, "lindsey kiviets" <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ya i dunno , it smells alot like taken. > > i dont like revenge movies. > > I watched the croods, good cartoon movie. The voice of the father sounded > so familiar , turns out it was nicholas cage, lol > > I lost at jhb vs cpt 5v5 in bb, i need to hold dat L. cant really talk > smack now in xrd thread. I just need to silently poon all. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:59:39 +0200 > Subject: Re: CTS community mail > From: ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx > To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Just finished watching John Wick. The movie is kinda mediocre but the > action scenes are top notch. > On 30 Dec 2014 13:39, "Ilitirit Sama" <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Finally made SMB my bitch. They even have this helpful message at the end > telling you "Congrats! You have finished everying in NSMB!" > > On to Bayonetta 2 now. Man, what a game. I can see myself playing this > for a while. > > > Stupid lol of the day: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3QcfZhYBzo&feature=youtu.be > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Ryan Williams <ryan820509@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > *LOL* > > That Jean though... > > And Professor X looks (and sounds) like Dr. Evil *lol* > On 29 Dec 2014 21:02, "lindsey kiviets" <lindseyak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-iMVsi0IuY > ------------------------------ > Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:59:16 +0200 > Subject: Re: CTS community mail > From: ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx > To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > If you want to get really technical (read: anal) you can say that you'd > also have to prove that married and unmarried are mutually exclusive > states. > > Consider polygamy: You can be married to 4 women, but then you divorce 1. > To unmarry someone means to undo a marriage them. So technically in this > case you are married and unmarried. > > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:30 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > lol, hadn't considered that possibility :P > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Correct, except if you use Constructive Logic. In that case you would be > required to prove that Alice, Bob and Charlie are indeed a married or > unmarried person, and you would not be able to use the Law of the Excluded > Middle or Double Negation. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic > > Why is this important? Because Alice, Bob and Charlie may in fact be the > name of animals (not people), which would either mean the answer is False > or undecidable. > > But we are reasonable folk after all, so we can appeal to Occam's Razor to > handle that. > > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:25 PM, sameegh jardine <sameegh@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Yes, because irrespective of Alice's status the question being asked will > be held true for either the first or second statement. > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > By the way, here's a riddle: > > Bob is looking at Alice. Alice is looking at Charlie. Bob is married. > Charlie is not. > > Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? > > > > > > > > >