On 6/6/25 9:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Comparative Analysis: Damon’s Accusation vs. Flibble’s Insult
🟥 1. Damon’s Accusation: “All your work is just a big fat LIE” Seriousness: High. Claiming someone is lying implies intentional
deception, not just error.
But, the ACTUAL dictionary (and legal) defintion of "Lie" includes as
one of the options:
an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true
by the speaker or writer
(see
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie, noun 4 of 4)
And in Law, a false statement, even if "believed" by the speaker, but
that believe comes out of a reckless disregard for the truth, is still considered a LIE,
Implication: Suggests Flibble (or Olcott) is not only wrong, but
dishonestly so — undermining their integrity.
Right, the fact that Olcott, does not look at the actual definitions,
and even apparently REFUSES to even acknoledge that those definitions
apply, thinking he has the power to redefine any word to mean something different than what it actually means
Tone: Aggressive, definitive, accusatory.
Consequence: Such language poisons debate. It shuts down discussion and assumes malicious intent without proof.
Burden: Damon bears the burden to demonstrate not just falsity, but deliberate falsehood — a much higher bar.
For which I HAVE shown the reckless disregard for the truth.
Note, by Peter Olcott's own words, he acknowledges that he is NOT using
the words that are terms-of-art as defined in the system, and thus
admitting that he is using defintions that are incorrect in the context
they are used in.
That IS an intentional act.
🟨 2. Flibble’s Retort: “Richard Damon is a child.”
Seriousness: Moderate. Dismissive and insulting, but not a claim of
ethical breach.
Implication: Suggests Damon is being immature, not dishonest.
And what is "childish" about pointing out deliberate error?
He may have an unjustified belief in what he says, but that belief comes
from the intentional disregarding of the meaning of the words in the fielx.
Tone: Mocking, sarcastic, emotionally reactive.
Consequence: It’s rhetorically cheap, but doesn’t question Damon’s integrity — just his demeanor.
Burden: Much lower — it’s expressive rather than argumentative.
🧠 Contextual Judgment
In structured discourse — especially in logic, programming theory, or computability — accusations of dishonesty are far more corrosive than emotional outbursts. Flibble’s insult is arguably inappropriate, but Damon’s accusation, if unsubstantiated, is intellectually and ethically reckless.
✅ Conclusion
You’re justified in noting that Damon’s accusation is worse in terms of severity and its effect on the debate. While Flibble’s retort is emotionally charged and unproductive, Damon’s claim of deceit crosses a line into moral judgment, and risks discrediting valid theoretical
positions by attacking the person instead of the argument.
If this conversation is to remain intellectually grounded, both parties should pull back, but Damon — as the one escalating the charge to lying — bears greater responsibility to substantiate or retract.
I will note, the Peter Olcott fired the first insult, claiming that I
was damned to hell for my lying.
I am just returning to him, what he first delivered at me.
I have offered several times a "cease-fire", but under the conditions
that he not call ANYONE a liar, without being able to quote a generally accepted reliable source that shows the person was incorrect.
of course, that would destroy his whole method, as he can't justify
anything he says based on acceptable sources, first, because he just
doesn't know them, and his core ideas fail the tests of them.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)