# Proposition X



## Whitefield

Well, we do like to find any reason to disagree don't we ... mention baptism, KJV, or you name it, and we are ready to step in with guns blazing. In the interest of providing an opportunity for great disagreement, here is a controversial subject for us to wrestle with ....

"X is true"

Have at it!


----------



## OPC'n

No, it's not


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> No, it's not



is too


----------



## OPC'n

verses please!


----------



## Whitefield

verses 1, 5, 9, and 17.


----------



## Kim G

X=false

or perhaps, if you look at it a different way:

X=true

(I'm one of those balanced "both ways are possible" kind of people.)


----------



## OPC'n

Whitefield said:


> verses 1, 5, 9, and 17.



Nope, I looked those up and they have nothing to do with X.


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> verses 1, 5, 9, and 17.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I looked those up and they have nothing to do with X.
Click to expand...


Well, you must be using the wrong translation.


----------



## OPC'n

ESV the only way to go. I bet you're using the KJ version.


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> ESV the only way to go. I bet you're using the KJ version.



Nope .. it's the "New Revised King American Geneva Standard Version, Authorized", with maps and pictures of the Holy Land from the 1930's spread throughout, and a useless concordance in the back.


----------



## OPC'n

Whitefield said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ESV the only way to go. I bet you're using the KJ version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope .. it's the "New Revised King American Geneva Standard Version, Authorized", with maps and pictures of the Holy Land from the 1930's spread throughout, and a useless concordance in the back.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, well I see your problem...the useless concordance. Start over!


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ESV the only way to go. I bet you're using the KJ version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope .. it's the "New Revised King American Geneva Standard Version, Authorized", with maps and pictures of the Holy Land from the 1930's spread throughout, and a useless concordance in the back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, well I see your problem...the useless concordance. Start over!
Click to expand...


Well, see, you are really proving my point that X is true with that statement. Q.E.D.


----------



## OPC'n

Q.E.D cannot be brought into this equation you are cheating. Go back to the original OP or I will shut this thread down!!


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> Q.E.D cannot be brought into this equation you are cheating. Go back to the original OP or I will shut this thread down!!



Please ... we are not permitted to discuss "shut downs"

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 02:54:35 EST-----

I knew I should have made this a poll.


----------



## PresbyDane

You are all disagreing with me, so I will shut it down


----------



## OPC'n

Whitefield said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.E.D cannot be brought into this equation you are cheating. Go back to the original OP or I will shut this thread down!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please ... we are not permitted to discuss "shut downs"
Click to expand...


Oops you're right!  Ok, let's start over and have an intelligent discussion about X. Your turn.


----------



## Whitefield

See, what you did Sarah .. you got the Danes involved.


----------



## OPC'n

Whitefield said:


> See, what you did Sarah .. you got the Danes involved.


----------



## LawrenceU

X is only true in the following case:

A/C > B(T-V^3)


----------



## Whitefield

LawrenceU said:


> X is only true in the following case:
> 
> A/C > B(T-V^3)



Thank you... that is my point exactly.


----------



## OPC'n

But not an accurate one!

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 03:28:13 EST-----

X only marks the spot of the thing that is true. Therefore, in and of itself, X can never be true because its meaning only points to the thing that is true.


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> But not an accurate one!
> 
> -----Added 4/13/2009 at 03:28:13 EST-----
> 
> X only marks the spot of the thing that is true. Therefore, in and of itself, X can never be true because its meaning only points to the thing that is true.



sez you


----------



## OPC'n

Of course, sez me! I only speak when I speak the truth.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Hmmm...

What is the sound of X being true? And if X is all alone in a room being true with no one around to perceive the sound of X, does X make any sound at all?


----------



## Whitefield

I apologize to anyone I have offended by asserting that X is true (which it is). Please accept my apologies for giving the impression I thought you were wrong (which you are). So I shall withdraw my proposition that X is true (which I'm not) and allow the discussion to end (which I won't).


----------



## OPC'n

I'm glad to see that you have begun to learn submissiveness. I know you will continue down the path of submissiveness until you finally come under my authority on this issue.


----------



## PresbyDane

Whitefield said:


> See, what you did Sarah .. you got the Danes involved.



What is wrong with the danes, we were the first to see the importance of x


----------



## Whitefield

Re4mdant said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, what you did Sarah .. you got the Danes involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with the danes, we were the first to see the importance of x
Click to expand...


Nothing is wrong with the Danes ... I didn't know X was an international issue is all.


----------



## OPC'n

See, that shows how little you know about X!


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> See, that shows how little you know about X!



Well, at least I know X is true.


----------



## OPC'n

Nope


----------



## PresbyDane

Have anyone of you considered the Q source on this X subject to prove the Y for asking this question in the first place?

that could bring this entire thig to ZZZZZZZZ I think


----------



## OPC'n

Re4mdant said:


> Have anyone of you considered the Q source on this X subject to prove the Y for asking this question in the first place?
> 
> that could bring this entire thig to ZZZZZZZZ I think



Yes, I have considered Q and it is Q which is always true.


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> Re4mdant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have anyone of you considered the Q source on this X subject to prove the Y for asking this question in the first place?
> 
> that could bring this entire thig to ZZZZZZZZ I think
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have considered Q and it is Q which is always true.
Click to expand...


No it isn't.


----------



## Zenas

Whitefield said:


> Well, we do like to find any reason to disagree don't we ... mention baptism, KJV, or you name it, and we are ready to step in with guns blazing. In the interest of providing an opportunity for great disagreement, here is a controversial subject for us to wrestle with ....
> 
> "X is true"
> 
> Have at it!



"X is true" is a conclusion you have emphatically stated, but failed to support. If we're to take this assertion seriously, surely you must be aware that we require you to support your argument with substantive evidence. 

Please provide the requested evidence or promptly flog yourself and never post again.


----------



## Whitefield

Zenas said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we do like to find any reason to disagree don't we ... mention baptism, KJV, or you name it, and we are ready to step in with guns blazing. In the interest of providing an opportunity for great disagreement, here is a controversial subject for us to wrestle with ....
> 
> "X is true"
> 
> Have at it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "X is true" is a conclusion you have emphatically stated, but failed to support. If we're to take this assertion seriously, surely you must be aware that we require you to support your argument with substantive evidence.
> 
> Please provide the requested evidence or promptly flog yourself and never post again.
Click to expand...


Ah, an evidentialist.


----------



## OPC'n

Zenas said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we do like to find any reason to disagree don't we ... mention baptism, KJV, or you name it, and we are ready to step in with guns blazing. In the interest of providing an opportunity for great disagreement, here is a controversial subject for us to wrestle with ....
> 
> "X is true"
> 
> Have at it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "X is true" is a conclusion you have emphatically stated, but failed to support. If we're to take this assertion seriously, surely you must be aware that we require you to support your argument with substantive evidence.
> 
> Please provide the requested evidence or promptly flog yourself and never post again.
Click to expand...


[email protected]!!!!!


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we do like to find any reason to disagree don't we ... mention baptism, KJV, or you name it, and we are ready to step in with guns blazing. In the interest of providing an opportunity for great disagreement, here is a controversial subject for us to wrestle with ....
> 
> "X is true"
> 
> Have at it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "X is true" is a conclusion you have emphatically stated, but failed to support. If we're to take this assertion seriously, surely you must be aware that we require you to support your argument with substantive evidence.
> 
> Please provide the requested evidence or promptly flog yourself and never post again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [email protected]!!!!!
Click to expand...


We can't deny what the early church fathers said about X.


----------



## OPC'n

That's right! The WCF: 194 Q: What does the bible say about X? A: It is false!


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> That's right! The WCF: 194 Q: What does the bible say about X? A: It is false!


----------



## Skyler

Whitefield said:


> "X is true"



If "X" is true, then it logically follows that "x" is not true. If "x" is not true, then the entire basis of algebra is gone, rendering advanced mathematics virtually useless. Therefore, in the interests of preserving space flight, jumbo jets, and overpaid math teachers, we must conclude that "X" is false and "x" is true.


----------



## Whitefield

Skyler said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> "X is true"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "X" is true, then it logically follows that "x" is not true. If "x" is not true, then the entire basis of algebra is gone, rendering advanced mathematics virtually useless. Therefore, in the interests of preserving space flight, jumbo jets, and overpaid math teachers, we must conclude that "X" is false and "x" is true.
Click to expand...


I guess you don't care about cabbages, kings, and sealing wax.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am cracking up. This is one of the funniest threads I have seen in a long time. 

Thanks.


----------



## steven-nemes

X can be a basic belief.... it's rational to believe that x even if he gave no evidence...


----------



## Whitefield

Cogito ergo X.


----------



## OPC'n

steven-nemes said:


> X can be a basic belief.... it's rational to believe that x even if he gave no evidence...



ummm, even atheists have beliefs.....which are false


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> X can be a basic belief.... it's rational to believe that x even if he gave no evidence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ummm, even atheists have beliefs.....which are false
Click to expand...


what is false? atheists? their beliefs? or that atheists have beliefs? ... either way, X is still true!


----------



## OPC'n

I think you're just being argumentative! You have not back anything up with Scripture...it's just all emotion that I hear coming from you! Dry your tears, calm you trembling lip, and just admit your wrongness.


----------



## steven-nemes

Appeal to force?


----------



## LawrenceU

If, as Sarah is postulating, X is always true what does that do to -X? I already know that some of you will be saying, 'Yes, X is always true and so is -X because |X| and |-X| are the same.' But are they really?


----------



## OPC'n

LawrenceU said:


> If, as Sarah is postulating, X is always true what does that do to -X? I already know that some of you will be saying, 'Yes, X is always true and so is -X because |X| and |-X| are the same.' But are they really?



Nice try! I said it was false not always true. So -X is just its shadow and shows how true it is that X is false!


----------



## AThornquist

I was under the impression that something is _always_ right only if it is XX; at least, anything less than XX must pretend that XX is _always_ right, otherwise unspeakable horrors come upon the anything that is less than XX. I have no idea what this means, but I think I read it in "Dad's Tool Shed."


----------



## LawrenceU

I misstated your postulate. My argument still stands.


----------



## OPC'n

AThornquist said:


> I was under the impression that something is _always_ right only if it is XX; at least, anything less than XX must pretend that XX is _always_ right, otherwise unspeakable horrors come upon the anything that is less than XX. I have no idea what this means, but I think I read it in "Dad's Tool Shed."





-----Added 4/13/2009 at 05:31:15 EST-----



LawrenceU said:


> I misstated your postulate. My argument still stands.



Nope


----------



## MrMerlin777

X=42

Now we just need to know what X is. Hmmm...

How about, "How many roads must a man walk down before they call him a man? A: 42

Yes, I know I know, a cheap Douglas Adams rip off.

I'm off to flog myself now so no one else has to.


----------



## OPC'n

MrMerlin777 said:


> X=42
> 
> Now we just need to know what X is. Hmmm...
> 
> How about, "How many roads must a man walk down before they call him a man? A: 42
> 
> Yes, I know I know, a cheap Douglas Adams rip off.
> 
> I'm off to flog myself now so no one else has to.



You see! I said earlier that X cannot be true because only point to the thing that is true! So 42 might be true but X in and of itself cannot be true...it's only a pointer to the thing that is true!!!!! I wish you guys would keep up!


----------



## AThornquist

(Warning--typical lame joke incoming)

All of this is astonishing. Why hasn't this thread been deleted yet? It's practically...wait for it...X-Rated!


----------



## MrMerlin777

AThornquist said:


> (Warning--typical lame joke incoming)
> 
> All of this is astonishing. Why hasn't this thread been deleted yet? It's practically...wait for it...X-Rated!





AAAAUUUUGGGHHH!!! (Grabs chest) THUD!


----------



## Berean

Does X have anything to do with the appearance of Sarah's face in her avatar(s)? If not why not?


----------



## OPC'n

Berean said:


> Does X have anything to do with the appearance of Sarah's face in her avatar(s)? If not why not?



 from crazy sarah


----------



## AThornquist

Berean said:


> Does X have anything to do with the appearance of Sarah's face in her avatar(s)? If not why not?




Post-Gen X meets nuclear waste?


----------



## Berean

Lou Christie sang "Two Faces Have I"  but Sarah has him beat by a mile


----------



## cih1355

X must be true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. It can't drive down the middle of the street because that would violate the law of the excluded middle.


----------



## Whitefield

AThornquist said:


> I was under the impression that something is _always_ right only if it is XX; at least, anything less than XX must pretend that XX is _always_ right, otherwise unspeakable horrors come upon the anything that is less than XX. I have no idea what this means, but I think I read it in "Dad's Tool Shed."



sorry to go  but I have a t-shirt that is XX but its too big for me ... ok ... back on target.

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 09:07:05 EST-----



cih1355 said:


> X must be true or false. It cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. It can't drive down the middle of the street because that would violate the law of the excluded middle.



I see your point .. maybe I'm being persuaded to alter my view on X.


----------



## OPC'n

What were we talking about again?


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> What were we talking about again?



Here is the link which proves my proposition beyond a shadow of doubt ...

The Question of X


----------



## Berean

sjonee said:


> What were we talking about again?



The title says *Proposition X*


----------



## Ivan

This thread is going to cause me to believe in the Rapture.


----------



## OPC'n

Whitefield said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were we talking about again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the link which proves my proposition beyond a shadow of doubt ...
> 
> The Question of X
Click to expand...


How you'd do that!?

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 09:19:39 EST-----



Ivan said:


> This thread is going to cause me to believe in the Rapture.





-----Added 4/13/2009 at 09:21:00 EST-----



Berean said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were we talking about again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The title says *Proposition X*
Click to expand...


Leave my




alone!


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> How you'd do that!?



Do what? .. I simply found the authoritative link on X.


----------



## OPC'n

I have found better evidence...and it's prettier! Link


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> I have found better evidence...and it's prettier! Link





> This blog is open to invited readers only



That's not going to convince anyone.

Ok see it now .. hmmm truth is measured by beauty .. interesting concept ... I'll be back ...

This shows X is true across the spectrum.


----------



## OPC'n

Try again...I just made you my friend for a little while.


----------



## jandrusk

Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.


----------



## Whitefield

jandrusk said:


> Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.



Excellent point ... and 
10 = T
11 = r
00 = u
0 = e


----------



## OPC'n

Whitefield said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point ... and
> 10 = T
> 11 = r
> 00 = u
> 0 = e
Click to expand...


10 = F
11 = a
00 = l
01 = s
0 = e


----------



## Whitefield

sjonee said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting discussion. Since your typing 'X' on your keyboard and scheme is based on the ASCII character set, the integer representation of 'X' is 88. Since computers actually only understand is binary our conversion from decimal to binary produces 1011000. Therefor, X is 1011000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point ... and
> 10 = T
> 11 = r
> 00 = u
> 0 = e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10 = F
> 11 = a
> 00 = l
> 01 = s
> 0 = e
Click to expand...


that 01 = s is a gloss inserted in the text by a scribe who was dyslexic and mistook the initial 10 in the series.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Methinks this is all a veiled attempt to seek to make fun of sound reasoning. This happens when one cannot come up with sound arguments and so humor is used to *deflect* and diffuse.


----------



## OPC'n

Hi Beth! Haven't seen you for forever!!!!!

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 10:07:20 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point ... and
> 10 = T
> 11 = r
> 00 = u
> 0 = e
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 = F
> 11 = a
> 00 = l
> 01 = s
> 0 = e
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that 01 = s is a gloss inserted in the text by a scribe who was dyslexic and mistook the initial 10 in the series.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rich Koster

X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.


----------



## Whitefield

But maybe this entire matter should be left to the elders of the tribe to decide.

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 10:12:46 EST-----



Rich Koster said:


> X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.



wow! but that 
still impressive analysis

-----Added 4/13/2009 at 10:14:59 EST-----



Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Methinks this is all a veiled attempt to seek to make fun of sound reasoning. This happens when one cannot come up with sound arguments and so humor is used to *deflect* and diffuse.



huh?


----------



## AThornquist

Rich Koster said:


> X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.




Wait, wait, wait... what does the Decalogue have to do with a big shirt for dyslexic people?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> Hi Beth! Haven't seen you for forever!!!!!



I be here, same time, same bat channel.


----------



## Rich Koster

AThornquist said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, wait, wait... what does the Decalogue have to do with a big shirt for dyslexic people?
Click to expand...


That would be a XXXL and require a new translation using whatever manuscripts we can find at the basement in Wal-Mart


----------



## OPC'n

Rich Koster said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> X = 10 so it must be referring to the Decalogue, which is true. Therefore if we reference the LXX, there is a 2 to 1 preponderance of the Xs vs Ls so I must side with the Xs. However if we take note that the X is a Roman numeral, we must reject it because it would reference the faulty Decalogue contained in the RC translation and render this satire completely bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, wait, wait... what does the Decalogue have to do with a big shirt for dyslexic people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a XXXL and require a new translation using whatever manuscripts we can find at the basement in Wal-Mart
Click to expand...


or in Whitefield's house


----------



## Rich Koster

Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> Hi Beth! Haven't seen you for forever!!!!!



I guess what I am saying is that x has always been where x was and is and will be unless God deems otherwise.


----------



## OPC'n

Rich Koster said:


> Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.



Yep, already cited it!


----------



## Rich Koster

sjonee said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, already cited it!
Click to expand...


I apologize for my platitude, I must have missed your OP.


----------



## OPC'n

Rich Koster said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also X is confessional, we have a chapter X in the WCF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, already cited it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for my platitude, I must have missed your OP.
Click to expand...


Forgiven!


----------



## Rich Koster

Im so glad, if not my wife would have to buy X indulgences for me.


----------



## cih1355

Suppose you were locked inside of a room. How would you escape? Take an X out of your front pocket. Tear the X in half. Put those two halves together to form a whole. Then, place the whole on the wall. Go through the hole and you will be out of the room. I think this is called escape by equivocation.


----------



## Rich Koster

cih1355 said:


> Suppose you were locked inside of a room. How would you escape? Take an X out of your front pocket. Tear the X in half. Put those two halves together to form a whole. Then, place the whole on the wall. Go through the hole and you will be out of the room. I think this is called escape by equivocation.



I think it would be classified as escape by homonym.


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan

AThornquist said:


> (Warning--typical lame joke incoming)
> 
> All of this is astonishing. Why hasn't this thread been deleted yet? It's practically...wait for it...X-Rated!



To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define X, but I know it when I see it!


----------



## cih1355

If X were a red herring, then a foxhound would chase after it. 

If X were a football, a quarterback from the Stanford Cardinal's football team would pick it up, throw it, and call it a Hail Mary!


----------



## Whitefield

cih1355 said:


> If X were a red herring, then a foxhound would chase after it.
> 
> If X were a football, a quarterback from the Stanford Cardinal's football team would pick it up, throw it, and call it a Hail Mary!



I'm offended that you would think that "X is true" is a red herring.


----------



## Pergamum

Is X true for God in the same way as X is true for man?


----------



## Whitefield

Pergamum said:


> Is X true for God in the same way as X is true for man?



X(Clarkian)=Ja
X(VanTilian)=Nein


----------



## Theogenes

Whitefield,
Your ipse-dixitism must answer this question:
How do you know??


----------



## Whitefield

Theogenes said:


> Whitefield,
> Your ipse-dixitism must answer this question:
> How do you know??



Simple ... cogito ergo X.


----------



## Theogenes

Whitefield said:


> Theogenes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield,
> Your ipse-dixitism must answer this question:
> How do you know??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple ... cogito ergo X.
Click to expand...


So...YOU are X !


----------



## NaphtaliPress

100 posts, and X terminus has been reached.


----------

