Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/24/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/24/2025 8:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/23/25 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 8:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself and Peter
Olcott have to fight against.
>
/Flibble

>
Yes that is true.
The primary dishonest tactic changes the words
that are stated into words that can be refuted
and then refutes these changed words.
>

>
Which is EXACTLY YOUR problem.
>
SInce you H and D just fail to meet the requirement of the theory you talk about, your whole argument is just a category error.
>

 _DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
 I did not include any theory in what I said.

Sure you have, as when we ignore your past statements you complain that we forgot what you have stipulated as always to be assumed.
Sorry, you are just proving that you words actually are meaningless, as you contradict your own meanings.

 It is merely a verified fact that DDD simulated
by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language
cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction final
halt state.

Nope, since the above DDD isn't simulatable as is, that can't be true.
That input doesn't include the contents of 000015d2, and thus you can't simulate it past that instrution as a simulation of the input.

 Any mere theory that disagrees with verified facts
is f-cked in the head.
 

No, you are just f-cked because you logic is based on lies.