Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/07/04
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Previous message: Peter Olcott: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Simon G Best: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Marc Goodman: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Marc Goodman: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:01:52 GMT
"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4114C34B.2010609@btopenworld.com...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> >
> > What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation?
> > Most of the attempts at refutation did not even try to form a sound
> > argument. Most of them were mere empty rhetoric. Rhetoric is what
> > people typically use when they run out of reason. If I am as wrong as
> > it is being proposed that I am wrong there should be at least two dozen
> > valid refutations. There are NONE!
>
> I notice you've been ignoring my recent thought experiment and the
> accompanying refutation. Ignorance doesn't make you right; it just
> makes you an idiot.
I already disproved your thought experiment. I always answer
the most recent posts first. Or maybe I have not yet encountered this
thought experiment, as I work backwards through the posts.
> > It never has been that anyone here could show that I was wrong. It has
> > always been I don't believe that he could be right. It doesn't seem to make
> > any sense that he could be right. I really don't want him to be right.
> > Provide me with a single valid refutation, and ONLY this will prove
> > these assessments (at least to a slight degree) are incorrect.
>
> That's been done. Work through the thought experiment I gave you and
> you'll see.
I did disprove one of your lines-of-reasoning, and it was very helpful to my
presentation. I now have a very simple way to make the distinction that
everyone is saying is impossible to make.
> > Then why is it that you have not been able to express this great clarity?
> > I really don't want to waste my time on an effort this is bound to fail.
> > I do have much better things that I could be doing, iff, this effort is
> > bound to fail. So far not a single person has provided me with anything
> > remotely resembling great clarity that I am wrong. After all this time and
> > effort, the lack of a valid refutation that I am incorrect, tends to build
> > an increasingly stronger support case that I am correct.
>
> No, it "tends to build an increasingly stronger support case" that you
> are deliberately disregarding the clear refutations of your arguments.
> Your ignorance of my thought experiment is clear evidence of this.
>
> Simon
>
If you keep pushing any points that have not been fully explained to
your complete satisfaction, I will keep explaining them in increasing
levels of detail until your are completely satisfied with the result.
The best that I can otherwise tell is that I must have adequately refuted
any other attempts at refutation.
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Previous message: Peter Olcott: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Simon G Best: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Marc Goodman: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Marc Goodman: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
