a theorem is not nor ever will be an irrefutable fact.

Really? Unless you can point me to a refutation of the Pythagorean Theorem, I'd say you talked yourself into a corner there.

You really must be extremely thick. Have I not already said that a theorem might very well stand unchallenged to the crack of fucking doom but it will still NOT become a indisputable fact unless proven. Viz Pythag. It is still only a theorem for which conclusive proof is often sought but never found. Its still useful though and is of course used AS IF IT WAS FACT. But it is not, its a "theorem."

Checkout a book about the search for ultimate proof of Pythag. Its called "Fermat's Last Theorem." I think its by some one called Simon Singh. The French mathematician called Fermat apparently tried to prove once and for all that Pythags triangle business was true in every instance for all time. But he couldn't and nobody has since either. Using something as true and proving it as true are different things.

Part of the problem is that the two most useless contributors to this site, spend most of their time mischaracterizing not just the posts, but the posters themselves--to the point where its impossible to find out what position their targets hold. Reverting to calling them "baby killers" and "blood drinkers" [and, of course, the ever-popular "racist"] certainly may satisfy their need to prevent intelligent discourse here, but it does nothing to actually get to the heart of the problems we're discussing.

This was my point. The US is installing its own unelected President in a position created specifically to end-run the electoral process. The fact that the US has any involvement there at all is exactly what's making this whole thing into a shit-storm. Whatever your level of academic achievement, the reality seems only to be eluding YOU; the least accomplished observer seems to get that when looking at the news coming out of that country.

Please don't be insulted. I was just relating my own feelings about Zalmay Khalizad. No he wasn't installed unelected president. He came in and twisted arms, and people followed him because he had access to money, which they needed. They engaged in a devil's bargain because his direct line to the White House was all neocon, just like he is. My level of academic achievement isn't an issue here, is it?

Reality is not eluding me. It's being jammed into a model which, if you don't mind my taking a wild guess, is some kind of Vietnam-Iraq hybrid thingy on CIA skids. No he wasn't there to do an end run around the presidential process, he was there to make the top priority making Bush look good, to make the neocons happy by thwarting all demands for more manpower and money from the Afghans, and to keep a lid on any attempts to derail the warlords, whom Rumsfeld and Tenet were coddling. He also underfunded the elections but that wasn't to subvert them so much as to subvert U.N. and donor nation calls to postpone them so they could be done right. Postponing them would have removed them as a campaign item for Bush/Cheney. You know, the old Republican thing of bitching about politics should stop at the water's edge and all that.

See? I am trying to add information, and much of it makes an even blacker case on these creeps than the one you are espousing. But because I don't think leaving is an option because we have a war to end first, because we promised, because the people there want an end to warlords and Taliban, I'm an ogre who doesn't listen to reason. You know better than that omooex, you've been places where they've turned semi-wars into forever total anomalies for right wing political purposes. I have no problems with you or anyone else taking all the information I'm trying to supply and using it to argue for immediate withdrawal if that's what you believe. At least the Congress would be forced to discuss the real facts finally.

At least the Congress would be forced to discuss the real facts finally. -- ondelette

I'm afraid that day is long over and shall not return for quite some time, if ever. Just sayin'.

Mr. Khalilzad missed the May 8 filing deadline, and the American and Afghan officials say that he has been talking with Mr. Karzai for several weeks about taking on a job that the two have described as the chief executive officer of Afghanistan.

…some Afghanistan experts said that enlisting Mr. Khalilzad would have the virtue of bringing a strong, competent leader into an increasingly dysfunctional Afghan government.

The position would allow Mr. Khalilzad to serve as “a prime minister, except not prime minister because he wouldn’t be responsible to a parliamentary system,” a senior Obama administration official said. Taking the unelected position would also allow Mr. Khalilzad to keep his American citizenship.

This is the context I mentioned Khalilzad. He WILL BE installed as an unelected governor in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration has been quite open about it. If you read my blog--or the New York Times--regularly, you'd know this.

Checkout a book about the search for ultimate proof of Pythag. Its called "Fermat's Last Theorem." I think its by some one called Simon Singh. The French mathematician called Fermat apparently tried to prove once and for all that Pythags triangle business was true in every instance for all time. But he couldn't and nobody has since either. Using something as true and proving it as true are different things.

Draw a rectangle. Inscribe another rectangle inside with it's corners touching all four sides and tilted at an angle so it makes 4 triangles with the sides of the bigger rectangle.

Then write the word 'Behold!' under it, in ancient Greek if you know how.

That was the proof of the Pythagorean theorem given by the Pythagoreans. It remains valid today, and will be valid when the universe collapses, for all right triangles in plane geometry.

It has little or nothing to do with Fermat's last theorem which is that x^n + y^n = z^n has no triple of integers, x,y,z, for n greater than or equal to 3. Fermat's last theorem was proven by Andrew Wiles in 1995.

Neither one of them is a working principle, they are theorems. Theorems are statements whose derivation from axioms follow the rules of the logical system in use, which most of the time is called ZFC or Zermelo-Fraenkel-Choice. They never change from true to false, and their proofs are regarded as discoveries of the truth, not inventions. You, as everybody is trying to point out to you, are confusing them with scientific theories.