Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v4b0oc$3nf9m$7@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v4b0oc$3nf9m$7@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:22:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4b0oc$3nf9m$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org> <v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org> <v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org> <v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org> <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org> <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org> <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org> <v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me>
 <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de> <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org> <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vml4$1o9el$5@dont-email.me> <v3vri0$3ao52$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4016s$287qb$6@dont-email.me> <v40vk6$2grjd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41l1v$2jqdk$11@dont-email.me> <v43lut$3a8bu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v448gs$3fscf$4@dont-email.me> <v44huq$3jn38$1@dont-email.me>
 <v44kli$3jnc8$8@dont-email.me> <v4689s$8bel$1@dont-email.me>
 <v474p3$ggn5$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:22:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3915062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v474p3$ggn5$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3989
Lines: 61

On 6/10/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-09 16:18:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/9/2024 10:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-09 12:51:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:07:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 2:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-07 22:22:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 3:45 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:22:12 +0200 schrieb immibis:
>>>>>>>>>>> He only ignores people now. Except Richard for some reason.
>>>>>>>>>> The reason being that Richard responds at the same level
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You respond with persistent false assumptions that cannot be
>>>>>>>>> corrected by feedback.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cannot correct other people's false assumtion but
>>>>>>>> you can always present your own for comparison.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can correct other people false assumptions iff (if and only if)
>>>>>>> they are as interested in an honest dialogue as I am.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even then. If one does not correct one's assumption oneself they
>>>>>> remain uncorrected.
>>>>>
>>>>> So one majickly cures one's own ignorance?
>>>>
>>>> Rarely that way.
>>>>
>>>>> If one assumes 5 > 6 then one is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Your disagreement does not prevent one from keeping that assumption.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The verified facts prevent anyone from correctly
>>> maintaining false assumptions.
>>
>> No, they don't, if one assumes that the verification was incorrect.
> 
> *Then they are being dishonest*

No, they are looking at the evidence.

You have admitted to not actually looking at yoru evidence, and that it 
ended up not being what you claimed, and that you never could have had 
the traces you said you looked at.

That makes your claims of "verification" unreliable, and thus not really 
verification.

> 
>> Besides, you didn't say they maintain their false assumtions "correctly".
>>
>