Re: Is Richard a Liar?

Op 16.mei.2024 om 17:34 schreef olcott:

On 5/16/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:10:24 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/15/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 19:34:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

*Anyone that says that I am wrong without knowing C is dishonest*

>
First you should prove that you know C.

>
Not at all. Not in the least. Deductive proofs cannot rely
on an argument from authority.

>
True but irrelevant. When someone sayes you are wrong, that does not
refer to any deductive proofs as you haven't presented deductive
proofs.

 None-the-less a single-valid-counter-example would prove that
I am wrong thus any claim that I am wrong lacking this required
valid counter-example is empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any
supporting reasoning: (EREBOASR).
 Repeatedly claiming that I am wrong without providing the required
counter-example when this counter-example is repeatedly requested
(and categorically impossible) does meet the standard of a reckless
disregard for the truth.
>

Olcott comes with claims. Claims that violate proven facts, so the idea that he is wrong is understandable. Olcott has the burden of the proof for his claims. Not knowing a counter example is not a proof, but empty rhetoric entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning: (EREBOASR).
Repeatedly claiming that his claims are verified facts without having any proof, even after repeated requests for a proof, does meet the standard of a reckless disregard for the truth.