Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###

On 21/05/2024 06:47, immibis wrote:

On 20/05/24 14:00, David Brown wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

>
No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.
>
>
If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is there any hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

>
I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are the troll. Please cease.

>
Indeed.
>
If someone has hard evidence of a crime (claiming to be "god" is not a crime), take it to the relevant authorities

 Be aware that Peter Olcott was already convicted, sentenced, jailed, and released [...]

None of this was speculation by Chris, but he is still a troll.
 

I have no information on that.  I have no reason to accept your word for it.  I have no basis for assuming that the poster here who uses the name "olcott" is the same as this "Peter Olcott" that you say is a convicted criminal.
/All/ of this was speculation by Chris, because he has no more knowledge than I do here, and I have /no/ concrete knowledge one way or the other.   Whether any of it is true or not has no bearing on whether Chris was speculating or not, or on whether or not it is appropriate to post here.
Even if what you say is true (and I presume you believe it is true - I have no way to know if you are mistaken or not, but equally I have no reason to suppose you are deliberately lying), then my assumption is that he committed a crime, was convicted in a fair trial, served his sentence, and the matter is closed.  Any long-term ramifications of his conviction - such as being barred from working with children - are totally irrelevant to this context.  Thus anyone bring this up for the purposes or effect of public humiliation and lynching is, at best, claiming /they/ personally have the right to punish criminals beyond the established criminal justice system.  And that is only if they know, beyond doubt, that the target of their posts is guilty of the crimes in question.
And note that someone who has been convicted of a crime and served their sentence is no longer guilty of that crime - they are an ex-criminal, not a criminal.  This does not change the history of their behaviour, but it /does/ change their rights now.