Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 14/05/2025 19:42, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 1:37 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 May 2025 10:06:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/14/2025 3:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 21:43:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 8:58 PM, dbush wrote:

>

I have the emails where he agreed that I could publish his agreement
with those exact words. Ben also checked this and verified it.

>
Please publish those instead of paraphrasing.
>

He agreed that I could publish this.
Ben checked with him at the time.

>
Ok so you don't have mails. Ben does.
>

 How the Hell did you misconstrue that Ben has emails
and I have emails into meaning that I don't have emails?

He hasn't misconstrued anything. He's made a reasonable deduction from the evidence you supplied above.
You claimed you had emails.
You claimed you had permission to publish his agreement (presumably in one of those emails?).
Asked to publish, you didn't publish. Instead you mentioned that Ben checked.
 From that history (all quoted in the chevronned text above), it is not unreasonable to deduce that Ben has the emails and to guess at a possible reason for your not publishing. Maybe you lost them? Who knows?
The fact remains that these supposed emails don't constitute evidence if they're not seen -  from videre, "to see".
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within