Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

On 6/10/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2024 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 16:18:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/9/2024 10:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 12:51:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/9/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis:

He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason.

The reason being that Richard responds at the same level
>

>
You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be
corrected by feedback.

>
You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but
you can always present your own for comparison.
>

>
I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if)
they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am.

>
Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they
remain uncorrected.

>
So one majickly cures one's own ignorance?

>
Rarely that way.
>

If one assumes 5 > 6 then one is wrong.

>
Your disagreement does not prevent one from keeping that assumption.
>

>
The verified facts prevent anyone from correctly
maintaining false assumptions.

>
No, they don't, if one assumes that the verification was incorrect.

 *Then they are being dishonest*

No, they are looking at the evidence.
You have admitted to not actually looking at yoru evidence, and that it ended up not being what you claimed, and that you never could have had the traces you said you looked at.
That makes your claims of "verification" unreliable, and thus not really verification.

 

Besides, you didn't say they maintain their false assumtions "correctly".
>