The common meaning of the term [lie] is
noun
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
an intentional untruth.
verb (used without object)
(1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive. Synonyms: fib, prevaricate
When Richard calls people liars and does not mean they have any
intent to deceive this makes Richard a liar because Richard knows
that people will be lead to believe that he is using the common
definition that requires an intent to deceive.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
The common meaning of the term [lie] is
noun
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
an intentional untruth.
verb (used without object)
(1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive. Synonyms: fib, prevaricate
When Richard calls people liars and does not mean they have any
intent to deceive this makes Richard a liar because Richard knows
that people will be lead to believe that he is using the common
definition that requires an intent to deceive.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
On 6/6/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 14:27:41 +0000, olcott said:
The common meaning of the term [lie] is
noun
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
an intentional untruth.
verb (used without object)
(1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive. Synonyms: fib, prevaricate
When Richard calls people liars and does not mean they have any
intent to deceive this makes Richard a liar because Richard knows
that people will be lead to believe that he is using the common
definition that requires an intent to deceive.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
In some places the subject line may be regareded aa a crime unless
its author can present an acceptable proof of it.
It is often regarded as a bad manner to put names of people
to the subject line.
According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lie#Etymology_2
a possible meaning is 'To be mistaken or unintentionally spread false
information'.
Richard intends for people to get the false impression thus Richard
lies with intent to deceive.
Richard already knows that an intent to deceive is the common definition
of lie, and deliberately calls me a liar full well knowing that I have
no intent to deceive. Two other people in this forum, already called him
out on calling me a liar.
Richard calls me a liar with full intent to short-circuit an honest
dialogue because he makes sure to utterly fail to provide any evidence
that I am even incorrect on this key point that we have been debated for three years:
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*Mike Terry would admit it if he would pay attention*
*He is not a liar*
*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH* https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
*My purpose in saying this is two-fold*
(1) Turn the conversation anchored in false rhetoric into
an honest dialogue anchored in verified facts.
(2) Protect Richard from the consequences of this:
Revelations 21:8 (KJV)
...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Richard doesn't call "people" liars, he calls specifically you one. I
wish he would do so less often, because it lowers the tone of the
newsgroup. Nevertheless, you_are_ a liar.
On 6/6/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 14:27:41 +0000, olcott said:
The common meaning of the term [lie] is
noun
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
an intentional untruth.
verb (used without object)
(1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive. Synonyms: fib, prevaricate
When Richard calls people liars and does not mean they have any
intent to deceive this makes Richard a liar because Richard knows
that people will be lead to believe that he is using the common
definition that requires an intent to deceive.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
In some places the subject line may be regareded aa a crime unless
its author can present an acceptable proof of it.
It is often regarded as a bad manner to put names of people
to the subject line.
According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lie#Etymology_2
a possible meaning is 'To be mistaken or unintentionally spread false
information'.
Richard intends for people to get the false impression thus Richard
lies with intent to deceive.
On 6/7/2024 12:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 14:56:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/6/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 14:27:41 +0000, olcott said:
The common meaning of the term [lie] is
noun
(1) a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
an intentional untruth.
verb (used without object)
(1) to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive. Synonyms: fib, prevaricate
When Richard calls people liars and does not mean they have any
intent to deceive this makes Richard a liar because Richard knows
that people will be lead to believe that he is using the common
definition that requires an intent to deceive.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
In some places the subject line may be regareded aa a crime unless
its author can present an acceptable proof of it.
It is often regarded as a bad manner to put names of people
to the subject line.
According to Wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lie#Etymology_2 >>>> a possible meaning is 'To be mistaken or unintentionally spread false
information'.
Richard intends for people to get the false impression thus Richard
lies with intent to deceive.
In some (but not all) paĺacess saying that is a crime unless you can
prove your words in a way that is accepted by a judge (or whatever
the local laws happen to require).
Anyway, moral and legal issues are of topic in comp.theory.
When anyone defames me or my work I must counter
this defamation in the place where it occurred.
On 6/6/24 11:47 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Richard doesn't call "people" liars, he calls specifically you one. I
wish he would do so less often, because it lowers the tone of the
newsgroup. Nevertheless, you_are_ a liar.
I will note that I only use the term when Peter repeats the same
falsehood multiple times ignoring the explaination of why it is wrong.
Such behavior proves that he isn't making an "honest mistake" but is
being willfully deceitful and ignoring the truth.
I offered to stop using the term if he will stop just repeating his statements without trying to defend them, but maybe he is honest enough
to know that he couldn't keep that promise, since he CAN'T defend his statements, since he just doesn't know the basics to try to break his statements down finer to something that explains them (without totally proving them wrong)
Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 6/6/24 11:47 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Richard doesn't call "people" liars, he calls specifically you one. I
wish he would do so less often, because it lowers the tone of the
newsgroup. Nevertheless, you_are_ a liar.
I will note that I only use the term when Peter repeats the same
falsehood multiple times ignoring the explaination of why it is wrong.
But that's practically every one of his posts.
Such behavior proves that he isn't making an "honest mistake" but is
being willfully deceitful and ignoring the truth.
Yes, but we all know that by now. Continually repeating that fact in virtually all of your posts distracts from your own factual arguments.
I think it makes you look a bit like a troll, particularly to newcomers.
If you could cut down the volume to perhaps 20%, pointing out only the
most egregious examples of lying, the effect would be magnified, not diminished.
I offered to stop using the term if he will stop just repeating his
statements without trying to defend them, but maybe he is honest enough
to know that he couldn't keep that promise, since he CAN'T defend his
statements, since he just doesn't know the basics to try to break his
statements down finer to something that explains them (without totally
proving them wrong)
Yes. But please consider what I've written above. Thanks!
On 6/7/2024 12:37 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
are correct, because I am not willing to put
that effort into your worthless claim.
Richard has finally admitted that he never looked at
any of these proofs thus finally admitting that his
dishonest dodge CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT strawman deception
fake rebuttal was always dishonest and deceptive.
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 70:06:14 |
| Calls: | 9,814 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,486 |