Can I be Alpha Pi?
I’ll do a cheer for you. 
Al.
Lib,
That you deigned to acknowledge my mere existence, much less address me, is greater edification than this, your humble sycophant, could have ever, within reason, expected.
I possess neither the knowledge nor the ability to comprehend the breadth of thy wisdom. I am thy swine; throw pearls at your leisure.
I pray thee one boon: the Word. What is the Word by which I will be able to formulate my worldview and from which all of my undertakings shall be guided and directed?
Having fun yet, Lib?
I laughed so hard at this thread, I broke the chair.
Lib you are a genius or a madman, possibly both.
Couldn’t you fix this by just recalibrating the main deflector dish?
See! You can’t think of any way to counter that one! Bow down before me! I am the MASTER OF IRREFUTABLE LOGIC, and your auntie wears polythene underwear!
Feel I need a few more exclamation marks!!!
Bring it on Lib. My cable is out and I need me some of that high faluten, real wrath of god (God, Dog, Lassie, hydrant) type stuff… (waving checkbook for that ticket to???) 
Clearly, your ability to frame, in this instance, a correct assertion, derives from the gentle breeze of my words having caressed your countenance. All who hear me are blessed.
Vandalay.
Its jealousy is quaint, if unbecoming. How I long to gather it in my arms, and give it kisses of enlightenment. Come. Join the others and make my feet thy pillow.
We shall always allow a gnat one flight past our face, with nothing more than a gentle wave of our hand to remind it of its station. But when the gnat is so foolish as to approach once more, we give it no quarter. Marvel now as I refute your petty argument.
Assume [sym]S[/sym] as a metaethic, and [sym]T[/sym] as an epistemology. We therefore have [sym] [[[S Ù T ] Ù U ] Û [S Ù [T Ù U ]]][/sym]. Given [sym][[S Ù [T Ú U ]] Û [[S Ù T ] Ú [S Ù U ]]][/sym], we can derive [sym][[[S Û T ] Ù [T Û U ]] Þ [S Û U ]][/sym]. Thus, we see that [sym][[S Û T ] Û [T Û S ]][/sym].
You may now die. Astroboy, please remove the corpse.
I cast upon you Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. And now we watch as you writhe and twist like a slug in a bed of salt.
That’s one of the best refutes I can remember in a long time… could you just go through it one more time… just to clarify things for me…
P.S. Is it the sort of refute that could be used generally… you know, like when I’m under attack and need to hold-off the opposition really impressively? A sort of ‘universal’ refute. If not, do you have one?
Silly. I alone am the universal refutation. There is no other.
There are quite a few unions and intersections of [sym]T[/sym] (a term denoting a non-concrete investigation into the nature of knowledge) for a materialist. Or is it possible for one such as yourself to directly observe epistemology, particularly when it issues from your buttox?
You misunderstood me. I will embolden key terms to assist your comprehension.
“T” here represents what we call a biconditional implication. It is a complex implication, which accounts for why you did not understand. I utilized what we call a syllogism (from the Greek: syllo, a place where farmers keep corn, and gism, the male ejaculate.) I put together for you what we call a logical argument. This was for your benefit, and I am dumbfounded at your lack of gratitude.
The core of Materialist thought is that there are no thoughts, at least not in the sense of what we call direct realism. I understand this because of my ability to assimilate abstract data. You can begin to approach my acumen in this regard if you observe how I craft my arguments. Quite naturally, no one would expect you to comprehend everything all at once, but you may take the whole project as an exercise. After some considerable time, it is conceivable that you might be capable of comprehending just enough of what I am saying to enable you to ask a pertinent question here and there.
I await your philosophical maturation with bated breath.
Lib, in all honesty and seriousness, you seldom make any more sense when you are serious than you do when playing around in this thread.
Why, Jab, my son, in all honesty and seriousness, your gratuitous ankle-nipping is just as misplaced here as it is when you do it all over the board. I believe I’ve already given you an opportunity to reform, and now I’m afraid you’ve forced me to withdraw it. Truly, you desire desolation and emptiness; truly you are it. So mote it be.
Look!
A flamingo!
[Lister]
“There’s nothing better than a good vandalay.”
[/Lister]
I think what’s bothering you is that ambushed is smarter than you and you know it. He’s making more sense in that thread than you are.
And you, my child, would know this how? It is like a man with no ears declaring that this sound is better than that sound. Here is your homework assignment: summarize the two arguments, citing references to at least five major works of philosophy. Contrast Hobbes with Aquinas, and Kant with Descartes, and explain the ontological models of each. For extra credit, explain how science is a branch of philosophy, and discuss the implications of the theories of Hume on scientific epistemology (in particular, the “scientific method”). When you have completed your assignment, you may then comment on the two arguments without appearing to be randomly lashing out as you are now. And please stop eating your turds.
If ANYONE here is coprophagic…
I’m still not impressed.
(Damn, that was the Lib mocking Lolo thread. Too many “satires” to keep track of)