Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/15/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:I did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.Am Wed, 15 May 2024 10:43:47 -0500 schrieb olcott:It is reasonable for me to construe that this is a lieOn 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 amHaha what?
wrong without knowing the subject matter is the
reckless-disregard-of-the-truth
of defamation cases and dishonest.
>Claiming that I am wrong knowing that no single valid counter-exampleSo sue me.
proving that I am wrong exists is dishonest and defamation.
Besides, we do know a counterexample.
>
until the counter-example is provided.
It is legally defamation to say that I am incorrectI did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
knowing that no counter-example exists.
It is legally defamation to say that I am incorrectI did, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
knowing that one does not know the subject matter.
*THIS IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS POST*No, that is NOT the proof that I talk of, so you are barking up the wrong tree in your utter stupidity.
*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?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.