Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/3/24 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 4:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 12:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 11:53 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 03/11/2024 13:19, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 10:21:09 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>

On 02/11/2024 08:43, Mikko wrote:

A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.

[PO:]

Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
deception.

That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes
all false statements. The statement itself does not change
when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
it.

>
    Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.

>
That is not a disagreement.
>

>
The term "lie" is to only be applied to intentionally
deceitful statements. To apply the term "lie" to statements
not having intentional deceit <is> itself intentional deceit.
>

>
Not if the person making that claim sincerely believes it. :) You are being inconsistent here...

>
Richard has said that he does not mean intentional
deceit when he calls me a liar, yet uses the term
"liar" anyway knowing that others will take this
to mean intentional deceit. So Richard is a liar
for calling me a liar.
>

>
Because the word doesn't just mean intential deciet.
>
And you are an intentional liar to say it only means that, as you have been shown the definition.
>

>
Unless you always qualify you use of the term "liar" as
{unintentional falsity} it is the kind of defamation suit
that you will lose because the communication process always
assumes the primary meaning of a term unless otherwise specified.

>
Nope, I guess you learned your law just as good as your logic,
>
Since a "reasonable" person will undetstand that statements that are clearly false under the standard mean can be considered to be lies.

>
*That not the way it works bro. Don't bet your house on that*

>
Would YOU bet your savings on it?
>

 Yes. I don't have much life left so yes.
*This is my official cease-and-desist notification*
STOP CALLING ME A LIAR !!!
 You may continue to say that you believe that I am incorrect.
Others here have already warned you that calling me a liar is
wrong.
 

But, you have proved by your statements that you don't understand the difference between truth and falsehood, and continue to repeat statements which have been proven to be incorrect, which means it *IS* correct to all you a pathologica llar, as that is exactly what you are.
Note, you clearly don't understand how the law works, as that is not an "official" cease and desist notification.