Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP

On 5/14/2025 2:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 1:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/05/2025 19:18, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 12:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/05/2025 18:46, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

PAY ATTENTION !!!

>
Oh, my dear dear chap - if I thought for a moment you had anything worth paying attention to, I'd be all ears.
>
But you have nothing but mindless repetition, over and over and OVER. For every article you post, I can pretty much guarantee that I've read 90% of it before.
>

>
I repeat the steps that prove my point until
someone actually pays attention to these points
that prove I am correct.

>
And how is that strategy panning out for you?
>
The more you repeat, the less attention you get. All you get is copy- paste rebuttals of your copy-paste claims.
>

 THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY ACTUAL REBUTTAL OF ANY
OF MY ACTUAL CLAIMS. There has been rhetoric
that stupid people could mistake as rebuttal.
 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
 

And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.