Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/15/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 15 May 2024 10:43:47 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/15/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 19:42:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/14/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2024 om 20:40 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:52 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2024 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:14 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2024 11:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:45 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2024 10:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2024 om 17:30 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2024 10:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, Richard Damon said:

On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, olcott said:

>

What I said was not precisely correct. None-the-less claiming that I am
wrong without knowing the subject matter is the
reckless-disregard-of-the-truth
of defamation cases and dishonest.

Haha what?
>

Claiming that I am wrong knowing that no single valid counter-example
proving that I am wrong exists is dishonest and defamation.

So sue me.
Besides, we do know a counterexample.
>

 It is reasonable for me to construe that this is a lie
until the counter-example is provided.

I did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.

 It is legally defamation to say that I am incorrect
knowing that no counter-example exists.

I did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.

 It is legally defamation to say that I am incorrect
knowing that one does not know the subject matter.
 

I did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.

*THIS IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS POST*
*THIS IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS POST*
*THIS IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS POST*
 Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 *When Richard interprets*
 *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
 as *D NEVER simulated by H*
 Richard is saying
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"
 Can this be an honest mistake?
 

No, that is NOT the proof that I talk of, so you are barking up the wrong tree in your utter stupidity.