On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 14:01:30 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:52:46 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:04:33 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:30:16 +1000, atec7 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't you find more satisfaction in blocking the fake peter which you
>>>> can do by looking at headers instead of looking uninformed ?
>>>
>>> Even the normal Peter (when not in one of his fugue states of
>>> being as Peter Stalker), is proven not worth reading. He's a
>>> pompous, self-centered, egotistical, narcissistic asshole.
>>>
>>> When he posts as his stalkers, he's actually normal in comparison.
>>> That why he invented his own stalkers.
>>
>> i can't go along with your theory that he is his own stalker. that would
>> be mildly interesting, an attribute that neither he nor his stalkers
>> possess.
>
> Gravity, relativity, evolution, and Everything are still
> technically theories as well. Even though they have been proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt and have never been disproven. At what
> point does a theory become a fact?
>
> -sw

don't know about fact, but a theory's only useful if you can use it to
predict things. though i guess you can predict peter and his (own?)
stalkers will be inane (and predictable).

your pal,
blake