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

On 14/05/2025 21:28, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 May 2025 14:21:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/14/2025 2:17 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/05/2025 20:02, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 1:56 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>

Asked to publish, you didn't publish.

 

I am not going to publish a private email you freaking nitwit.
I published the words that he agreed to as I said that I did in the
linked paper.

Yeah, so you don't have proof.

Well, it would be more precise to say we don't know whether the claimed email exists.
I suppose it comes down to whether you trust him.
Perhaps it's naïf of me to doubt whether he'd deliberately lie about this supposed email, but I wouldn't put it past him to have misremembered the circumstances in which it was sent, and nor would I trust him accurately to report how the context leading up to the email might have affected its context.
Personally, I am always sceptical evidence I can't experience first hand unless at the very least comes from a source I regard highly.
If it were Ben or Keith or Mike, I'd say you could take it to the bank. But it isn't.
--
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