On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
enables
one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of
its
input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
matches a
correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never >>>>> stop running unless aborted.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) >>>>>
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03. >>>>>
The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D) >>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, I
have shown that your claim is incorrect.
Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
as complete proof of huge election fraud.
Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
NOT telling the truth.
If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
Is your memory really that bad?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
enables
one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode. >>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code >>>>>>> of its
input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
matches a
correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will >>>>>>> never
stop running unless aborted.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) >>>>>>>
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03.
The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the >>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this >>>>>>> D(D)
calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs >>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything. >>>>>>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H,
I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed >>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the
absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that
actually simulates the input to the end state.
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the
rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of something has
the burden of proof.
Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it
means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
NOT telling the truth.
Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it,
call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and
you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop
posting your insaine ideas about halting.
If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to
make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
Is your memory really that bad?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must
simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
CHECK.
Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm >>>>>>>>> enables
one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode. >>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
code of its
input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly >>>>>>>>> matches a
correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
will never
stop running unless aborted.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates >>>>>>>>> D(D)
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own >>>>>>>>> line 03.
The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the >>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that >>>>>>>>> this D(D)
calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs >>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
anything.
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of
H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H* >>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
construed
as complete proof of huge election fraud.
But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to
the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine
that actually simulates the input to the end state.
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
refering to,
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
then I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect
that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the
rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of something
has the burden of proof.
Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that
it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
NOT telling the truth.
Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it,
call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and
you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop
posting your insaine ideas about halting.
If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough
to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
Is your memory really that bad?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
CHECK.
Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
The x86utm operating system:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode. >>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine >>>>>>>>>>> code of its
input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly >>>>>>>>>>> matches a
correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input >>>>>>>>>>> will never
stop running unless aborted.
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that
simulates D(D)
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own >>>>>>>>>>> line 03.
The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the >>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that >>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of >>>>>>>>>> pairs
you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean >>>>>>>>>> anything.
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the >>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D >>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design >>>>>>>> of H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated >>>>>>> by H*
The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
construed
as complete proof of huge election fraud.
But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to >>>>>> the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine >>>>>> that actually simulates the input to the end state.
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
refering to,
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
refering to,
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying
it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
then I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by
saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you
are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
then I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are
just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect >>>>>> that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that
the rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of
something has the burden of proof.
Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny
that it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers. >>>>>>
Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are >>>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth. >>>>>>
As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post
it, call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post
it, and you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will >>>>>> stop posting your insaine ideas about halting.
If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough >>>>>> to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a >>>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar. >>>>>>>>
Is your memory really that bad?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
CHECK.
Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth.
If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you
can't be trusted on the next.
On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
PERIOD.
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
PERIOD.
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
If you leave USENET I will repeat this every day for a year
after you leave USENET.
On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
PERIOD.
Your reviews have been helpful in that my words are now clear
enough that they cannot even be intentionally misconstrued
without looking ridiculously foolish.
I am guessing that you have realized that now and that is your
basis for quitting.
On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth.
If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you
can't be trusted on the next.
And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have
been proven to lie many times in the past.
I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove
that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional
spouting off before you bothered to pay attention.
That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy
claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on
the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same
point.
On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
PERIOD.
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
*Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
*Prove it on this point*
Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
*I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth*
But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not.
I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D
past line 3.
THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid.
It is categorically impossible and you know it.
It is the same shim-sham as your other proof.
The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates
that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie.
The pillow guy keeps saying that he has proof and is having
all of his assets taken away because he know that he lies
about this.
On 5/7/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth.
If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you
can't be trusted on the next.
And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have
been proven to lie many times in the past.
I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove
that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional
spouting off before you bothered to pay attention.
That is a LIE.
You have just ignored every proof that you lied because you are just
like that pillow guy.
That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy
claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on
the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same
point.
Nope, I have SHOWN the proof.
YOU ignored it.
I completely ignored all of your messages for quite
a while, possibly weeks. Most of your messages were
hardly anything bedsides ad hominem attacks.
Are you willing to put up or shut up?
or are you going to be chicken and just keep making your false
statements that you don't beleive strongly enough to take a risk on them.
I guess you are just a chicken liar.
You have never not even once gone through every single
detail of any of my reasoning.
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:23:15 |
| Calls: | 6,910 |
| Files: | 12,377 |
| Messages: | 5,429,445 |