Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 21:31:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fde43123627f09385c30a136d35b6072dc397bdc@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <ddbd48b20851b2362f0841506e0ffe32430323d9@i2pn2.org>
 <100dbpt$14tvf$2@dont-email.me> <100f06a$1ije7$1@dont-email.me>
 <100gvce$22oen$1@dont-email.me> <100h9a5$24gpu$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i37l$292ko$1@dont-email.me> <100i586$29du3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i5o4$29qbf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 02:05:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1242548"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100i5o4$29qbf$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/20/25 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/20/2025 9:57 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 20/05/2025 15:22, olcott wrote:
>>> I wish that people would pay attention.
>>
>> Your wish is in your power to grant.
>>
>>> People only glance at a couple of words that I say
>>
>> That might be because you're so repetitive, insulting, dismissive, and 
>> obfuscatory.
>>
>> If you want people to pay attention to what you write, repeat less. 
>> (Don't think up an excuse for repeating more. Repeat less instead.)
>>
>> If you want people to pay attention to what you write, insult less. 
>> (Don't think up an excuse for insulting more. Insult less instead.)
>>
>> If you want people to pay attention to what you write, don't dismiss 
>> out of hand what people are telling you. (Don't think up an excuse for 
>> dismissing out of hand what people are telling you. Listen to them 
>> instead.)
>>
>> If you want people to pay attention to what you write, clarify your 
>> argument. (Don't think up an excuse for obfuscating. Clarify instead.)
>>
>> Prepare a web page that summarises the logic of your claim. No code! 
>> Just English. Post the URL, and ask people for comments - not for 
>> arguments, but for improvements. What do they find unclear about your 
>> argument? Just for a while, forget trying to get people to agree with 
>> you and see if you can get them to understand you instead.
>>
>> Because if you can do that, you have a fighting chance of turning this 
>> farce of a thread farrago into something that might actually serve a 
>> purpose.
>>
> 
> It seems to me that reviewers such as you far
> too easily dismiss verified facts out-of-hand
> with no supporting reasoning. That gets me P-O'd.
> 

You mean your verified LIES?

After all, you haven't explained how you can use a criteria that looks 
at programs on something that isn't a program.

Thus NOTHING you claim has a basis to be "fact".