Here 6:30 PM on a Wednesday, and I could try running for the shop before too late, and getting two 6-packs of beer for the weekend.

Anyway, you do not need any one-eyed beast for threading a mill either, but here I was stuck for only the correct word.

I can well recommend running, for the healthy exercise.

Going, so as to work up an Arnold Schwarzenegger six-pack, might be "overdoing it" a bit...

And two cans are more than enough for me for the night!

Now... Where is my good book?!


Good luck!!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=85770&postid=2103914

The words in the enclosed picture here, for that of being more precise or exact.

So, for not any hopelessly in love, I could be climbing a vertical wall here instead, for only the impossible it could be.

For that, it becomes only Waltzing Matilda, for not any climbing it could be here still (the name of the female singer).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqtttbbYfSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp43OdtAAkM

Here you get a little example of knowledge, because here taking only some five minutes in order to remember, and next look up.

Rather that proving the impossible, could be still about infinity, for not making it any flying discs or UFO's here instead.

As you probably know, my second or parent project for that of actively running, developed problems in recent days,
for also a need of making a couple of posts, for explaining a couple of things.

But here still only mission impossible, and next I only fell off for that of slipping, except still not any proving for only being possible,
and here only endless for that of love, for not any infinite it should be for only proving instead.

Only that it became validate error, for still not any validation inconclusive, and next I was able to do such a thing for a project,
in order to make it both Proof and validity for the thing we could seek, and next also explain.

Please tell me if we could validate any observation for only done or carried out, and next such a thing for making it valid for a project.

Next only believe in the possible witness for what he saw, except that he could be still an experienced pilot, except that I was
only left stuck on the Method of Proof for that of its validity or validness instead.

Should any Logic make it still possible to determine, for only the opposite it could be, when that of NOT here instead, for a Negation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

Only tell me that of true, for not any Uncertainty, and it becomes still only Truth here instead, for not any other or thing you only could invalidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Think it became only a choice for that of select, and next also picking for that of such a choice, for not any selecting, for making it legal instead.

So here only prove nature for that of its validness when still only true, for not any false here instead, only because the latter should be invalid.

But next only spawned from that of its first point of beginning, for not any false here instead, because we only validated nature to be true,
for only a meaning.

More that of Consequence, when still only such a thing for only happening, because here no need of any believing just either, but only proving here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence

Again, that you may be able to see that it could be impossible to prove any nature for that of its validness, because it could still only negate,
for that of being invalid.

Does nature exist, for that of something, and I could still validate, for not any sitting here instead, for only watching television perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim

Here I claimed a thing to be valid, for still also proving, except that it became only false here instead, for that of being invalid.

If perhaps so, I only slipped on that of Logic, for making it a False statement for not any true here instead, for also making it possible
to conclude, and next also validate.

So next only 0 for that of false, for not any invalid here instead, because here I was still able to prove for that of true, for only the valid it still could be.

Any uncertain here instead, for being unable to conclude, and it became only such validity for making it Proof, when still only 0,
for not any false versus true here instead.

But next asking whether any Logic could be having or coming with such a thing for still only Uncertainty, when not being able to
answer for that of false versus true here instead.

For such a thing, it becomes still only 0 for that of undecided, because here false versus true should be their separate choices for such a thing.

In such a way, 0, for that of zero, nil, or NADA, when also meaningless or flawed, becomes false here for only invalid, except still proving.

But next I was also able to conclude for that of false, in that it perhaps could be still a False statement, for not making it any nature the same.

Should any infinity next be only true, because 0 could be still false just here?

Only that I proved any false to be just invalid, for only the flaw or fluke it could be, for not any true here instead, for perhaps meaningful instead.

Rather that for still only being quantifiable, also I validated nature for that of its wealth, except not any invalid, for being empty here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

If so, any empty should still be only false for that of 0 or nil, when also proving, and next that infinity should be true here instead.

Again, "Does nature exist", for that of being valid, and next I quantified such a thing for still only being true, for not any false here instead.

Try keying in "Invalid Logic" in the Wikipedia, for the answer you may get, and here perhaps not any uncertain either, for only being a fluke.

Question any Logic, for still only a way to determine, for not any uncertain here instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

So here only making it nature by Principle, by just only thinking, and it became infallible for such a thing, when still not able to conclude.

Just thinking that nature could be that of both false and true when next quantifying for such a thing, and it becomes completeness here instead.

Now I am having the beer, before getting too late before the finish.

And here only a "whish" for not any "whoop", because here only a nature being perceived for only the Imagination it could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination

Quantizing for something, and you could still be quantizing for everything, for not any believing here instead.

So here still only a wealth for not any myriads or magnitude instead, only because I was able to quantize for such a thing.

For still that of Biology and Biodiversity for their separate things, also that of such for being parts of nature, when still only separate.

But next only "Men in Black", for not any white, and it became only ghosts here instead, for the believing it perhaps could still only be.

Validating for Logic, is still the thing it perhaps could become, for only the right versus wrong it also could be, for not any completeness here instead.

Here it became such a discussion, both here and also at PrimeGrid, for still only the problems they could be having.

But next still only the mysterious, for also exciting, and it becomes the nature we could still observe for that of its phenomenons.

So next in the same way for only validating for Logic, also I could be making it such or the same for that of nature here as well,
for only the possible Event it still could only be.

Ask the moderators there, for not any copying here instead, when still making it valid Logic for not any fluke,
and next also deciding for only a Consequence, for not any invalid here instead.

Only just said before, for the other thing, and I made it a Creator here for just my own, when still thinking that nature could be
falsified for only a fluke, when still only real here instead.

This because I ended up invalidating both Logic and Religion for that of their separate things, and next also should be doing such a thing
with that of nature here as well.

Meant to be, and still an Implication for just the same, except that I could be making it false here for not any believing, except also 0, nil, or NADA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implication

All roads leading to Rome, and next also quantizing such a thing for that of being complete, except still only incomplete for being infinite.

So, does nature have any soul for still only believing, or should it only be that of Heaven and Hell for such a thing?

But next only a suggestion, for not any propose here instead, and it became only a third set of Laws here instead,
when that of a scientific God for that of Creator, making the Universe as we know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Here such a thing for only knowing, except I still only knew here for not any Fallacy here instead, because such a thing should be still only believing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

Again the postings I made at PrimeGrid here during the day, for not making it any "Quantifiable Logic" or infallibility here instead.

Does any God decide for still only the Logic we could make it, for not any Judgement here instead, when it could be that of the Courts?

Maybe choice here, for not any decision here, see below for that of more.

Here stumbling for that of lack of air once again, and switching to PrimeGrid for my recent postings there, in order to get at "deciding".

What is the other word here for still not any deciding, except only trying or failing here instead?

So here still only an attempt for climbing a vertical wall for just only the hard it could be, and next it also could quantify for nature,
for still only a meaning for such.

Any strain for only hardship instead, and it became only physical for such a thing, for next also a nature I still could only prove.

But for next only doing such a thing, you also quantize for a given meaning for only the thing it could be, and not any infallible here instead,
only because such a thing could be immaterial.

Make it still valuable for only worth, and next also precious as well, but here I made it wealth instead, for still only the magnitude it could be.

So here do not forget that nature could be rich for that of its properties, and we also should be proving for the same thing here as well.

"Order, order", for still not any order of selection, but only Topology here instead, when we could be still quantizing for such a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology

Next, still size or sizes for such a thing when also quantizing, for not any believing here instead, only because it could be infallible.

Any honest or honesty, for not any dishonest or dishonesty here instead, and it became only a deity here instead, when still only believing.

You perhaps already know it, but I dismissed both Logic and Religion for the possible thing it could be, and left it only to nature here instead.

So, except for still only quantizing for nature, and not making it any infallibility here instead, it became still only a deity for that of believing,
for not making it any "Set" for that of a Creator here instead.

Prove any infallible for only the valid meaning it could be, and next only invalid for that of inconclusive, only because it should be false.

As mentioned earlier at PrimeGrid, 0 could become only false for that of invalid, when also nil or NADA for just the same.

Therefore I also gave a note (or suggestion) of keying in "Invalid Logic" in the Wikipedia, for only the answer you could get,
and next the opposite became that of infinity here instead, for only the true it perhaps could be.

Only that you quantify that of Logic for making it true versus false separately, and next also prove for just the same.

So here 0, for still not any matters or meaningless, and it becomes the Empty set here as well, for only the false it could be,
except that I was left undecided here instead, for only quantizing such a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

Be my guest, or welcome for that of such a thing, when still everything being possible, and next we also should believe in such a thing.

Quantizing for nature, for still only the complete it could be, next also infallible, for only the separate or other thing it still could be.

Did it became only the note I still only made, for making it still only infallible for such a thing, for not any proving here instead?

You may still try keying in "Quantifiable Logic", for not any Deductive reasoning here instead, because here I still should only validate.

To repeat myself, for just being precise or clear, 0 should mean false for that of Logic, and 1 should mean true, when still not any numbers.

So like qualifying, for still only quantifying, also I could disqualify for only an error, and next becoming invalid (or false) here instead.

Just tell a judge for being dishonest, and next he was lying here instead for not telling any Truth, except still PrimeGrid for the other posting.

Only that complete or completeness becomes infallible or infallibiilty here instead, for the validity or "judgment" we could perhaps make it.

Which outcome for that of result, and it became still only validness for that of deciding, for not any nature here instead.

Prove by example, and next you also could be certain, for not any Fallacy here instead, when it could be still only Religion.

Next, be only decisive, for that of decisiveness, for only force being used, and next we should also be proving even such a thing.

Rather that I tried concluding nature for that of it validness or validity, except only stuck in the mud for making a choice between
false and true, for not any deciding here instead.

Just think (again), that I concluded nature for only being false, and next also made it "valid", for only the material it still only should be.

Does nature (or the Universe) still only exist, for not being any flawed or fluke here instead, and next we also could be proving such a thing,
except not being any false.

So here true, for still only valid, except that a sentence also could make it flawed or a fluke for only the error it could be, when still only false.

Only that it became false versus true for only that of separate, and next we should be proving such a thing for only being different.

But here still in the middle, for only 0 being false, and next I quantized any such for not being any invalid, for only the false it still could be.

In such a way, for only the erroneous statement I could make, also a flaw or fluke for such a thing, because it should be still only an error.

But next I was only quantizing that of ghosts for not being any material, for also concluding for the same.

Rather that it became unquantifiable here instead, for still not any provable, and therefore I was perhaps only dreaming here instead.

Being unquantifiable, next also immaterial in the same way for only the valid Logic it could be, except only proving here instead.

Should I next prove any ghosts or dreams for not being any valid, for still only false, or should it be the Method of Proof here instead?

WYSIWYG, or should perhaps Logic itself be only flawed for not being valid, except still only proving here instead?

If next perhaps rather true here instead, also that I could believe in such a thing, for still not any error or flaw here instead (just false).

So here "push" any Logic, for just let me knowing, for not making it any Creator here instead, for only the "Set example" it perhaps could be.

Believing in the infinite, for only that of infinity, and next such a thing I perhaps could be doing, for not any proving here instead,
only because it should be impossible.

Here a closed door instead, for that of Julius Caesar, when he came, saw, and next went, for not any God here in person,
just seeing what he could be doing, and next also the best out of it.

Only indeterminable, for still being true, and next I also quantized such a thing for only the valid it could be, for not any unbelievable here instead.

A couple of breaking sentences right now, for not any finishing just here, when still only a couple of beers, for that of sitting in my chair.

Get, get, get, for still not any put, because here I was still only proving by means of example.

Sadly I just forgot, for not any "onion rind" just either, but only a one-eyed beast here instead, for that of striving, and next I forgot the name.

But here not any helter-skelter for just playing with nature, because I rather could be fooling with myself.

So here only a hedghehog for that of animal, and not any tree-wooden bridge I could be making, for only entering across a river.

Just a fantasy, for still only making it a one-eyed beast, and next of course I was believing for just the same.

But here only a clamp in the piano, for not any clap here instead, and next I entered the bridge for only getting stuck and next falling,
and next it became only the end, for just exiting or perhaps falling.

So here only a wrong step for just doing, except still falling to your death for not any climbing, and next you also ended up dead.

Rest in peace for only being brave, and next also silent, when still not any violent or abrupt for that of sudden death.

Next, coincidences rule, for that of chances reigns supreme, when still the other project, and I was left undecided, for only the possibilities it could be.

Ask me for which factors that could be deciding, and next you could only prove for the same, when still not any nature for only faltering.

So, to be or not to be, and it became only such possibilities for not any faltering, because we could be thinking that nature could be flawed.

Limits, for not any limitless, and it became only the thing we could quantize, for not making any unquantifiable here instead.

Which factors for still only deciding, and next also quantifying for just the same, only because it should be provable.

Rotate perhaps, and next such a thing for that of 0, for only the zero, nil, or NADA it could be, except only invalid.

For that, I determined a thing to be only false for not any qualifying, because here it became deciding for still only validating.

Should any 0, for only zero, nil, or NADA, mean or become the impossible we could get, for not any infinite here instead,
and next only spin around for that of a loop, when still not any decided?

But next only fulfilled, because I quantized in such a way for only making it valid, except that I also proved for such a thing.

Still only a Theory just here, for not any provable, because here it became only infallible, for the invalidated it perhaps could be.

So read my lips here, for just a joke, and you should not believe me just either, for only the false or invalid it should be.

You be the judge for still not any dishonest, because here only proving nature instead, for only the valid it could be, and not any false versus true.

So here you quantify that of true for still only valid, for not making it any false for just invalid instead, only because it should be still Logic.

Enter the train, for that of determined, and still a push for such a thing, for also the quantifiable it could be, except proving for the same.

Which else, or other, for that of a nature that could be only immaterial, and next ghosts or dreams here, for only the unprovable it could be.

So here the other thing still, and next also quantifying for such a thing when still valid, except only being material.

Whisper in the dark, for not any ear, and I could be validating any Logic for just only false versus true, for not any dishonest here instead.

... Whisper in the dark...

For just one random association:

YouTube: “PURE YANNI” - "SoundCheck" - "Whispers in the Dark" - Los Angeles, CA


Enjoy!
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Next in the kitchen, for getting more beers, and also ML1 answering for that of responding, and next I could be out of here.

Meant I should be getting at just the Conclusion here when still only sitting in the chair, except only thinking here instead.

Just trying here for that of a start, and next you could still think that valid should be or mean that of material.

Should I conclude a Fallacy for only being just real, and next also feeling well here as well?

But here only unjust or unfair for not any just or honest, for only dishonest here instead, and next you also qualified for just the same.

Spooky feeling, because next I was only looking into the sky for making it determinable, and next also qualifiable here as well.

Conclude for science, and always the thing I could do, except still proving for the same, for only the valid or "matters" it could be.

Did it become only spoken words for that of science, except that I concluded such a thing for still only validness, for also the proving it could be?

Everyone could be asking, except still not any dream, for only possible validness instead, when making it nature for such a thing.

But next it only falters, not because of a possible dream, but only that Logic could be such a thing, for that of becoming invalid.

Prove science for still only being true, except only false here instead, for not any mechanism just either, but only a Method.

So next rely on science, for still being valid, and next also true for the same, for not any flawed or invalid here instead.

If perhaps so, I still only believed in such a thing for only being false, and not any true or valid here instead.

So when nature only falters, because of a fluke or flaw, also it becomes false here as well, for only the part or mechanism it could be.

Window or tab closing in front of me, so here next only continuing with the story for just writing.

Next provability, for not any Probability, and we could still only prove for that of the same, for not making it any flawed or fluke here instead.

Give me an answer for just only stated, because I could still prove here for such a thing.

To the fullest or best perhaps, and we could still quantifying for just only making it valid, except also proving for still only the same.

Here the poor could still need some help, while the rich could be living on itself for being self-sufficient, for not having any need.

So, make a selection between that of false and true for next only valid, and of course it becomes valid for still only being true,
except that I only quantized for that of a difference here instead, for just the "in between" it perhaps could be.

So here I only was proving for that of limitless, except that it became only false here instead, for not any true you could make it.

But next that the Empty set could mean just 0, zero, or NADA, for only the false it still could be, and next also invalid.

Prove science for that of valid, and still quantize for just the same, only because it should be valid Logic (false versus true).

Any different, for next the other thing, and perhaps that of believability here when next only Religion, for still not any proving.

So here I truncated the invalid stuff for only being invalid, except also false here as well, for not any validating here instead.

In such a way, you perhaps quantify nature for that of being valid, for not any invalidating, except still only true versus false.

Prove any nature to be false, and here perhaps only believability still, for not any such you could validate, for only being true.

So next throw any Logic for also Religion to the lions or ashes, for not being any valid or true, and I rather dismissed such a thing here instead.

Claim your friend for only being dishonest, and next also prove for that of the same, only because it should at least be possible.

Two different cubits for that of false versus true, and next I could be validating, or perhaps proving, for still only the same.

What is the other thing for next only nature, except only just said, for that of making it infinity?

Should I make a selection here, and not any choice or difference, for that of validating any Logic for only the "true" it perhaps could be?

Rather that I could be interpreting a word or wording for just said, except making it a Claim here instead.

If so, I was, or could be proving science for the thing it only could be, except also nature for the same, when it could be a possible God or Creator.

Prove a Fallacy, and next also invalid, for not any qualified or determinable it perhaps could be here instead.

Next, the more of it, for still only quantifiable, and next also fulfilled, for not any believed or believable here instead.

I tried making it a possible third Set of Laws for only making it, except that it perhaps was only God here instead, for being the Creator of just everything.

Skipping, for not any flirting, and I could be still dismissing a couple of things for only being a joke, for not any Truth here instead.

Infallible, or infallibility, for not any certain, and next only the qualifiable you could make it for being certain, and not any flawed here instead.

If any answer, for only Proof, could be still tantamount, it could be so by means of showing, except only proving here instead.

No matter for that of choose or select, because such a direction should be still only the Proof you could make it.

True believer, for next only nature, and next only part of such a thing for only believing, except still only "Good night!".

And next only a sad thing, for perhaps they (or aliens) watching down on us for the thing or business we could be doing,
for not any life or mentality they could be having themselves.

Always that of Proof or proving here, for not any weak or dexterity (lack of it), or tow handedness, for only the feeble it perhaps could be,
when still only proving for the thing it perhaps could be.

Could I perhaps, for only the concluding it still only could be, except also completeness for making it nature here instead, for only the thing it could be?

Assume a thing for being likely or likelihood, and next also prove such a thing, for still not any feeble or minuscule for nature here instead.

So, believe it or not, for just not any proving for the same, because here it became still only validness or validity for the quantizing you also could make it.

Prove any different, for still not any true, and next I only proved that of endless, for only the infinite it perhaps could be.

Should it be or make any difference for only the proving you could make it, except only true versus false for only the Logic it could be?

Continue with the saga, for also story, and next also limitless for the same. for still only the nature it perhaps could be.

Just said it, for only being indeterminable, and next perhaps not any Logic here either, for only the indecisive or inconclusive it perhaps could be.

Next, prove any infallibility, for not any science you could make it, because still only being Religion here instead.

OK, or anyway, but is nature still only infallible because of science for only proving, and not any Religion for just believing here instead?

Meant to be science here still, of course, or anyway, for only the Proof you could make it, and not any believability.

Tell me any wrong, for not any right, and perhaps it should be only "Love me do", for not any trusted here instead.

Just believing in any Religion, for not any trusted, or valuable, and next perhaps not any valid I could make it either.

So here only absurd, for still not any believability, and next I was also proving, for only the validness or validiity it could be.

Quantize any nature for still not any right versus wrong, and it became only false versus true, for the valid we perhaps could make it.

Only that completeness should still mean infallibility for just the same, and next I was adding Religion for being part of the picture,
for not any "fulfilled" or completed here instead.

Should I next quantize for not any determine for only making it Religion being true, for not any science here instead, for being possibly valid?

But next I ended up wrong, for that of proving a Falsification for only the "complete" it could be, and not any infallible here instead.

Give or make, for still not any Set, because here still only believability, for perhaps not any Truth you could make it either.

Concluding for validness or validity, and it becomes still only true versus false here, for not any spoken words instead.

So, make a choice between the Empty set for that of nil or Nada, for not any completeness instead, and you are having or getting
nature in front of you, for just eyes only.

"Trust your feelings, Luke", but the more of it you perhaps could get, also Truth for that of the same, when also valid.

So here I was still running, for not any show or empty train, but rather a field instead, for that of a 100m or 100 yard race.

Should any completeness become the valid you also could make it, for not any invalid here instead, only because nature could be such a thing?

Just tell me I could be true for only the answer I could make, and next also valid, for not any untrue or false here instead.

Only that possible quantification could still make it true, for only the valid or validness you could make it.

What if I left only nature to decide, for perhaps only the false it could be, and next also flawed or a fluke here as well?

Is that of Logic any provable issue for only making, or should it only be quantizing here instead?

The answer left, for perhaps only nature to be answering, could be that of such a thing for only concluding, except still only validness here instead.

Only that it became a nature for not any decided, and next I was only proving for the valid answer it perhaps could be.

Prove any beer just here, for not any laughter or ridicule here instead, because still not any "So long", just either.

Should we believe in any intelligent life for only possible, for not making it any Glyph here instead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyph

Any quasi- for only entering outside any realm for only reality, and it becomes only the Imaginary here instead, for perhaps not any believable either.

Here scientific research, for only the separate it perhaps could be, also could be different wordings for only Terminology.

So help me God for still only undecided, and it became only unbelievable here instead, for also the infallible it perhaps could be.

My words, for only knowledge, and perhaps it becomes only the Dumbbell nebula here or M27, for not any incredible instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbbell_Nebula

So here still only choose to make it words for only a stated meaning, for not any nature here instead, and it becomes still only infallible.

Any set Laws, for still only deterministic, and next also qualifiable for just the same, for not any undeterministic here instead.

So choose between a valid meaning, for not any invalid here instead, and it becomes still only a quantifiable Universe we could make it.

What is the limit we could make it for any knowledge, or perhaps something else, for only the infinite it could be here instead?

Is the possible God or Creator we could make it, past our limits for only understanding, for not any infinity here instead?

Like reason, for also Law, it becomes only Justice here, for only a difficult or hard thing to understand.

So like a trick, for only a magical wand, and next I became only happy and glad for just knowing, except not any nature for its completeness.

Open the door, for still not any closed, and it becomes the perimeter for that of limit which we could be trying to understand.

Prove for any absolutes, and next perhaps only impossible, for still not any Proof itself, for only the thing it could be.

But only that unqualified also became the unquantifiable we could make it, for not any undeterministic here instead.

Nonsense, for only pointless, and it became only meaningless, for not the thing we rather should quantify here instead.

Did nature just open my eyes for only seeing, or should it rather be Perception for only realizing here instead?

Only that nature just offered me everything for that of its completeness, but next that we should be proving for only the infallible it could be.

Unfortunately it became only a discussion here about infinity, for not any aliens or E.T. we could prove.

So here only argument by means of a fist, and next you only could be dismissing, for the unquantifiable, or meaningless it perhaps could be.

Don't tell me that I should be any God for just pretending, because here I am still only a person sitting behind a laptop, for only using.

Should we still prove for science, for only the quantifiable it could be, and not any unquantifiable here instead?

Here speechless, for only dumbfounded, and it did not become any word I just could say for only telling just either.

Any Truth for only being witnessed, and next nature for the same, for perhaps not any believing it should be either.

Truth is a virtue, and next also science for the same, for not any Logic here instead, which could be only invalid.

This because I never could be any before for only preceding, when still only nature for that of just the same.

So here speak on behalf of nature for only the "full" it perhaps could be, for not any infallible or incomplete here instead.

Any deterministic, for not any undeterministic, and next I only quantized nature for not any infallible here instead.

Should I next only bow for not any kiss, and next in front of God for just making it, except that it should be an altar here instead.

What if I could relate to nature, for only the words I could make?

Just a look-ahead, and next I only believed in nature for that of its Consequence, for not any proving here instead.

Answer for God, for not any versus, and it becomes still only nature here instead, for only the infallible it could be.

Did you just know, for not any shaking hands, that I could "believe" in a possible Creator, for not any making here instead.

If we could be making nature any pointless or meaningless, for also the invalid it could be, next of course not any such thing either.

Making anything relative, also "set", for not any unrelated or incomporable here instead, when we could be having nothing to compare against.

As you probably know, I did not make it any nature finite or definite for only the final it could be, for only undefined or indeterminable instead.

Ask, make or set a difference, for only the opposite it could be, and next also an indefinite meaning for only the unquantifiable it could be.

Is nature any other, for only the thing it perhaps could be, for not any pretending here just either?

But only that nature could be the set preference for still only proving, for not any believing it should be here instead.

Give me an excuse for still only Time Dilation, for not any unqualified or undeterminable Logic, for only the invalid it could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Good or important article here, when next also making a link to it.

So creep to the cross, for still not any bowing, and perhaps it should be only swearing instead, for not any believing here instead.

Only that nature could be still complete for that of its perfectness, except also incomplete for that of meaning, and next we should also be proving.

For not being any drunk just either, I could be stating my credentials for just only given, except still only name and address just here.

So for not any invalid it should be either, for still only believe, I could state or provide my credentials for only the valid it could be, for not any questions making here instead.

Is any form just secure, for only the valid place I could make for stating my credentials, for still not any insecure here instead?

Tam-ti-di, and nect only a tribute to nature I could make, for not any asking, because it should be be still only validity here instead.

Just you or me for only depending, and it could relate back at me for only the question I could make, and not any answer back in return.

Tell me that I am any dumb for not any numb, because here I was only validating nature instead, for only the Proof I could make it, and not any invalidating.

Perhaps up the list for only sentence, when still only asking.

So, ask a scientist here instead, for only the thing it could qualify, when still also matters as well.

Here you never made it any such a thing for that of nature when only a Lie, but only a Proof here instead.

But next it becomes perhaps a Fallacy, for only the unquantifiable or indeterminable it perhaps could be.

Answers for that of nature, and still only true, for not any false it could be here instead.

But next only dismissing both Logic and Religion, for the regardless it perhaps could be.

Could nature be any quantifiable, and next also infallible for only the meaning it perhaps could be?

Any answer for that of God for only the Logic it could be, and next I dismissed both Logic and Religion for the the thing it could be.

Becomes wholeheartedly here instead, for still only the complete you could make it, and not any else.

Any "legitimate" for that of Truth, perhaps only possibility here instead, except perhaps needs checking.

Only take over, for that of helm or steering wheel, and next you also was in charge, for that of your post.

Any surpassing of Laws, for only Commander in Chief, and next it became only nature for that of doing such a thing.

Here nuts and bolts, for still not any complete, because we only should be proving for that of fulfillment just here.

So here question any nature for not any valid, but only peculiar or enigmatic here instead.

Any indeterminable Conclusion, for also indeterminable Physics, and perhaps it should be such a thing indeed.

Off the hook, for still only astray, and it became only the science I could not any prove, for only the validness it still could only be.

But next we only believed in nature, for not any quantifiable we could make it, but only making it Proof here instead,
for the sake or purpose it perhaps could be.

Oh gremlins, for not any answer I could be making it just eitther.

You know I could be explaining it.

Angel in the sky, and next I only could believe.

Any Premise for nature instead, and next it only was given by God, presumably.

So here any Fallacies of nature, and next only laugh of it, because I could be an idiot.

Therefore, still question nature for that of self, and not the other.

First of all, what is the limits of nature, and perhaps we are not knowing it just either.

Only that we think it should be infalllible with respect to the other thing it could still be, except still only God.

The measurement we could be making of nature, could be still only infinity, except also infallible here instead.

Any God for your nose, still also your Premise, for not any other thing here instead.

Does God switch on any fuse for only becoming such, next you also should believe it.

Enough, for that of vice versa, and it could slip a couple of times for not being any perfect, except still only infallible.

Hocus-pocus, so next God invented nature for its own sake, when still only being divine.

Here it makes me think that the nature we should believe, also should be God's creation of a making, only because he made it.

There should be no point of relating infinity with any else, for only the comparison it could be.

Finite question, and next also finite answer, and next we could be still asking questions about nature.

We are some 0.84 on the Kardashev scale, aren't we, and next what to compare with, for that of anything else?

All-around, and next also run-about, for that of nature for its disguise (or Premise), and next the nature which it should be all about.

So next stop for that of a halt when still only infinity, when not any "wait a little" here instead.

Oops, sorry, I thought nature was that thing, for not that of the other.

Next, believe for or versus science for what it could be all about, for not encountering any wall here instead.

Here Laws of nature, or the Laws of nature, should be still determined, except that we make it still infinity here instead.

First of all, bow my hat to the one who made it, because here not any singularity either, for perhaps not the plural it should be either.

Is nature any undeterministic, for only choosing at random, and it could be still only the singularity inside a Black hole here.

Only that such a thing becomes a product of nature, for still not any more.

So, does God gave it for just an offer, or should we still believe it here instead?

What if I happened to quantize any wrong for not any real, and next ended up wrong or erroneous here instead?

The problem here is that you could not ascribe nature to a certain thing, except still only Religion here.

Puuh, lost my breath, so perhaps here enough for now.

Anyway, it should be even more to it, for not any posted.

Part versus whole, and I gave you only one explanatory explanation, grmph.

Next waiting for the answer, because it could be another one.

Is not the total we could make it, also the grand of it, when still total destruction or annihilation?

Any soft here instead, and next you could think it could be relief or salvation here instead.

Next only nature's point of making it instead, because here not mentioning God for only "love to do".

So, which Premise for God, and next Revelation here instead, still only leaving me to be believing.

Should I next quantize any unbelievabiltity here, for not any infallibility here instead?

More that of nature here perhaps, for only the thing we could quantize, or being material.

So next, does such a thing surpass my belief for not any determination, only because it could be still quantized?

One thing for nature, and next the other thing for that of a possible God, is it not so?

Which Premise for only believing in nature, for not any God here instead?

Any synonym, or replacement for a given nature, still perhaps infinity for such a thing.

Only that we do not know which whole it should be for that of reality, when still only infinity for such a thing.

Here "there is", for also "there ain't", and next you are also supposed to be not any believing for such a thing.

Does any arbitrary decide for only a winner, for not any decisiveness here instead, which could be only a Conclusion?

Bang, bang, bang, lost the track, for perhaps leaving it there, for just you only thinking.

I could make a reposting of a post here among many at PrimeGrid, for next only being hidden there.

So next not going any good for only validness, when still only writing out of the dark, for only spot, and next it also could be unfinished.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I read through the first article for only translating a couple of words I did not know, and next still only speaking for science for such a thing.

Assume any philosophers to be scientists for only the claim they could making, when perhaps not any believing for only Religion instead.

Just over the edge for that of an overflow, and it could still only exaggerate for that of being superfluous, except also proving for the same.

Therefore Belief for still only making it Religion, for not any believing for validness instead, only because it should be true.

Is nature still only a given thing for that of a choice, and it becomes scientists for only making such a thing, for also the claim they still could be making.

So here presume nature for still only its validness, for not any true for that of Logic instead.

But next perhaps a Set for making a choice or selection when also a preference, and next could be both quantifying and qualifying for the choice being made.

Any Logic for still only a Set for that of its part, and next not any combined or merged here for that of a fuse.

So here not any expert on this, but only that a variable could also be making for a variability when next only being Statistics.

Next believe in Logic for that of its part, and next prove for the same, for not any invariability here instead.

Ask a scientist here for not any statistician whether or not nature could be any determinable, for still only undefined or indeterminable here instead.

Only that I presumed still not any Logic being valid, for next also Religion for that of the same, and rather it became a Set here instead for only proving,
except still both things for that of combined.

Here only nuts and bolts for that of being intertwined, except also the Chaos it could be for the same.

So for not any exclude or exclusion mechanism just either, only that nature could be depending on each part for only separate, for also the combined it could be.

Remember that this could be a discussion about infinity, for only the undefined or indeterminable it could be, except also that of Logic, for still only being invalid.

Here quantifying for that of Logic, for still not any Certainty, because one thing should be only valid, for the other thing being possible.

So, choose not to believe, for still only invalid for not any Certainty, and next I was only proving here instead.

Any left to decide for only decided, and still not any undecided for only that of Logic, when still only Certainty here.

Next indeterminable Logic here, for not any way of quantifying either, when still only being invalid, and I have to write it here for only making it posted.

Can you next still assume or presume that nature should be only one thing for not another or the other, for only the combined or merged Set it still could be?

If I happened to exclude any Logic for only being invalid, next not any part of a given whole for only the complete meaning it perhaps could be.

So if you still happen to read it correctly here, I could be validating nature not for that of Logic, but only Certainty here, because you should be able to determine.

Is that of infinity next still only indeterminable for not any valid here instead, only because you were able to conclude for that of Logic?

Just writing in the blind for only the middle of the day, and I do not know where it could end up for only similar validity or Conclusion.

But like also own, for that of ownness, and not any peculiarity just either, nature could be still its own self-reference, for that of replicating.

So next only left stuck for the answer I could make, not the other just either, for still everything for that of combined or included, for only the separate parts it could be.

Just hiding in the sleeves, for that of a disguise, and next also mentioned before for only the answer it could be, except that it should not be any Religion for only proving.

But only for that of skew, when still not any sliding off, it could be that of a discussion for that of the separate, for only the parts it could be, when also a reference.

Only agree for not any disagree, and next only a Court of Jurisdiction for only deciding, except that I was still only quantifying, for the valid it perhaps should be.

Could my attitude for inclination be only just normal, for not any special here instead, and next I only was believing in nature for that of completion,
for not any proving here instead.

Should it be any nature, for only the preference or precedence you could be making it?

Any Proof you could be making or relating such a thing, next perhaps only the other it could be.

Wrong discussion here instead, for not any answer having or left to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXKvKJw6Zb4

I came across this video once again, for also having seen it before, using a larger PC.

So here a discussion about Logic and Proof, for also a Conclusion, except that it also could be the Kardashev scale.

Here this scale could be logarithmic, making ourselves still 0.84 on that scale.

So here my question, could an alien craft belonging to a civilization between 1 and 2, be able to visit the Earth?

Always a difference between that of a lightning for still not any alien craft, when it could be belonging to an intelligent civilization.

So if such an object for only a craft could be disappearing instantly, for also momentarily, is that because of any time properties?

Either it could vanish for only reappear later on, or it could be traveling somewhere else in both space and time in the meantime.

So here do not tell me that I am a part of nature for only my own, except also nature being part of itself for still only separate parts.

Next, troll in a box, for only jumpting out of the closet, for still not any instant for only disappearing momentarily, and next reappearing.

Nature could be still having separate parts for only consisting, so therefore still only myself for only sitting, and not any lightning.

So if not any lighting orb here either, for still only a flying craft without wings, next only an object for such, still needing a description,

Either nature for still only separate, when it could be that of diversity and manifold, for not any specific here instead, for only being proven.

Only that watching the video, makes me unsure or uncertain at best, for not any Doubt, except that it could be even more for only present.

And here more rather should be better, for still the advanced Type II civilization it could be, and next keeping a close eye on us.

So rely still on any Doubt, for not any dumb-fooled, because here it only became that of imaginary, for not any infallible instead,
and next only categorize for still only specific, for making it possible type of craft.

So presume any nature for only real, when still not any imaginatory, and I made it nature as a whole for a given meaning, for not any Proof here instead.

Therefore still in flesh and blood for a couple of things, for not thinking it should be any divine for only visiting just either.

We know that alpha Centauri is separating our solar system with 4,3 light years, for still not any space being bent when close at light.

More that gravity should be making for such a standstill instead, and only becomes another story.

Therefore do not presume any Belief for only Certainty instead, when it could be still possible, and next still only wrong.

Only that it becomes a limitless world for that of infinite possibilities, and next I could be still only part of it for just living.

I do think that we are not any alone in space, only because any Doubt could be still casting a shadow, for not any likelihood instead.

So when I looked at Proof, for still not any Uncertainty, next only part of a given story for just only whole, except a couple of things still lacking.

Only just everything, for also anything, it could be still even more of it to just nature, for not the other thing we only should know.

The model we could be having for just thinking that it should be only lightning versus possible intelligent beings, next only Magic here instead.

Again, rely on Proof for still not any infallible, and it becomes only a way of thinking how it should be.

Any describable versus undescribable should be still only for real when being observable, for not any words in a dictionary instead.

So next object to a given world when still only real, for not any Mysteries, Magic, and Miracles instead, for only unprovable.

Therefore it becomes still only part versus whole for only describing, for not any imaginatory or infinite here instead.

Both that of lightning, and also myself for only sitting, should be still part of nature for that of respective parts, except not having to prove myself.

So for still only a dictionary here, not any astonishing or astounding either, when it should be that of describing nature for its properties.

For all I know, the Universe could be teeming with life for still only Probability, except that I still only should prove for that of the same.

But next that proving for any infinity, should not be the same as proving any other beings for only the intelligent it could be.

So here trust my senses, for not any dismissing here instead, because here I was still only believing in nature for that of valid, and not any invalid.

For only just that, it becomes that of proving for a given sense, when also thing for just the same.

Any infinity for still only infinite possibilities, and next also likelihood for just the same, when also that of Probability.

So here perhaps a Type III civilization for only being charge of a whole galaxy, for that of energy output or consumption,
for not any holy cow instead, when only believing in God.

Only reign for that of supreme, and I still found my place of living for only sitting in a chair, for not any others for only alien beings instead.

What does it mean, or which Consequences should it be, when still not any alone for only ourselves, but rather others here instead?

Just take it for granted, when still not any Belief, and next it became only Proof here instead.

Any alternatives for only options, and I could still presume nature for that of being, for not any overnatural or supernatural instead.

Therefore also a misconception for just thinking, and next I became only wrong for that of the same.

Only so fortunate I could be, when still only realizing or conceiving that of nature for that of its being, when also elements for just the same.

Any failure of Proof, and it becomes only Uncertainty here instead, when only that of invalid for still only the Logic it could be.

Any stupidity for still only killed the cat, and next I did not open my eyes for only the wide horizons instead, when it could be still
inconceivable or unfathomable.

Only that I relied on my senses for still only the trusted it could be, for not any past or beyond for only infinity here instead,
wgen still only being incomprehensible.

The one perhaps telling the thing in the past that we are not any alone, could be a liar, but new evidence could suggest the other.

But only me or myself for just that above, and I tried proving for that of infinity here instead, for not any project being part of.