Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

newstome_at_comcast.net
Date: 08/08/04 

Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:38:45 GMT

In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qUVQc.100497$eM2.4036@attbi_s51...
>> In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:41139DDF.4060403@btopenworld.com...
>> >> newstome@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> > OR, the rest of you are all wrong,
>
> What else could explain the complete lack of a single valid refutation?

Au contraire, mon petit autruche. There have been many valid
refutations here.

> 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!
>
> It never has been that anyone here could show that I was wrong.

There is apparently a much larger difference between "show how Peter
is wrong" and "make Peter understand why he's wrong." The former has
been done many times here. I'm beginning to think that the latter is
intractible, although I do hate to completely give up on someone.

> 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.
>
>> > yet so strenuously believe
>> > that you are right, that you expend great effort (including denial)
>> > in the quest to prove what you already take for granted, and
>> > just less than zero effort actually attempting to understand
>> > what I am saying.
>>
>> And even in your psychoanalysis of us, you're entirely wrong. I, as
>> well as many other posting here, am a scientist, and scientists are
>> nothing if not skeptics at heart. I didn't "take for granted"
>> Turing's proof. Until something is proved to me, I have a really hard
>> time believing it (which is probably why few scientists are religious,
>> although I suppose that's an entirely different subject).
>>
>> Back to Turing's proof: I didn't believe it because someone told me
>> to. I was a skeptic. I read the proof. And I understood it. And I
>> also read your arguments. And like many others here, I see exactly
>> why and how you are wrong with great clarity.
>
> Then why is it that you have not been able to express this great clarity?

I suppose "express with great clarity" is dependent on the person
doing the reading. There have been many clear and specific
refutations that show exactly why and how you are wrong. I've posted
at least three very specific explanations showing the error in your
reasoning. So have many others. These are clear to everyone but you
apparently. Now what does that tell you? 

-- 
That's News To Me!
newstome@comcast.net

Relevant Pages