On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what haltingBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a
decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in >>>>>> input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed to do >>>>>> the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it
based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of
execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
quaint misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational
phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and don’t >>>> count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were
rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is what
they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical
color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as
when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very specific
colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article is
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what haltingBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a
decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in >>>>>>> input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed to do >>>>>>> the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it >>>>>>> based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of >>>>>>> execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
quaint misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational >>>>>> phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and don’t >>>>> count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were
rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is what
they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical
color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as
when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very specific >>>> colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article is
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what haltingBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a
decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as >>>>>>>> in input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed >>>>>>>> to do the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it >>>>>>>> based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of >>>>>>>> execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
quaint misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational >>>>>>> phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and
don’t count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were
rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is
what they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical
color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as
when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition. >>>>>
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very
specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article
is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting >>>>>>>>> decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as >>>>>>>>> in input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed >>>>>>>>> to do the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction.But only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a >>>>>>>> quaint misuse of the word.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it >>>>>>>>> based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of >>>>>>>>> execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational >>>>>>>> phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and
don’t count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were >>>>>> rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is
what they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical >>>>>> color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as >>>>>> when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition. >>>>>>
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very
specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article >>>>>> is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 9/1/2025 11:25 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:stuck
On 2025-09-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:Are you then saying that you cannot see that M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ remains
On 8/31/2025 12:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-08-31, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:Thus M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ is not required to report on M ⟨M⟩
When the HP requires a decider to report on its caller
... is never!
Instead it must report on the fact that *its input*
⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ correctly simulated by M.H remains stuck in recursive
simulation.
The reason its input remains stuck is that the input contains an exact
copy of the decider, which it has applied to itself. Either the decider
is not terminating, or else it has returned true, and the diagonal test
case embarked on the opposite behavior of not terminating.
The decider applied to the input, and the one applied by the input to
itself, are indistinguishable. That's the important thing about the
diagonal test case; it is a non-negotiable ingredient in proofs of the
Halting Theorem.
The "outer" decider cannot report on the fact that the input is stuck
in a recursive simuation, unless the input's "inner" copy of the same
halt decider algorithm reports the same exact thing.
Because the diagonal test case ensures that whatever the "inner"
decider reports is wrong, the "outer" decider is wrong in exacty the
same way.
HHH(DD) denotes exactly the same thing in every context in which it
appears. Its use within the DD test case is not distinguished from any
other in any way whatsoever.
in recursive simulation unless and until it aborts this simulation?
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically limited its
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting >>>>>>>>>> decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as >>>>>>>>>> in input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed >>>>>>>>>> to do the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction.But only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a >>>>>>>>> quaint misuse of the word.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject >>>>>>>>>> it based on logical misunderstandings, especially his
conflation of execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an
observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is >>>>>>>>> one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>> don’t count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as
were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which >>>>>>> is what they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what
"physical color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as >>>>>>> when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that
definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very
specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article >>>>>>> is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
usage to a non-standard usage when it did so.
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or truth) works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically limited its
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting >>>>>>>>>>> decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as >>>>>>>>>>> in input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed >>>>>>>>>>> to do the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>But only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a >>>>>>>>>> quaint misuse of the word.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject >>>>>>>>>>> it based on logical misunderstandings, especially his
conflation of execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an
observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is >>>>>>>>>> one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>>> don’t count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as >>>>>>>> were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which >>>>>>>> is what they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what
"physical color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as >>>>>>>> when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that
definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very
specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article >>>>>>>> is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
usage to a non-standard usage when it did so.
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or truth) works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 9/1/25 2:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically limited its
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>>>> don’t count as true, physical colors." --
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting >>>>>>>>>>>> decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller >>>>>>>>>>>> as in input, reports to its caller because its caller will >>>>>>>>>>>> proceed to do the exact opposite causing a logicalBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a >>>>>>>>>>> quaint misuse of the word.
contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject >>>>>>>>>>>> it based on logical misunderstandings, especially his
conflation of execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an
observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is >>>>>>>>>>> one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic. >>>>>>>>>>
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as >>>>>>>>> were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm
(which is what they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what
"physical color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" >>>>>>>>> as when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that
definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very >>>>>>>>> specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that
article is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
usage to a non-standard usage when it did so.
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or truth) works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out with their conclusionL
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in
which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is
show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view that
you can just redefine words to say what you want.
This is shown also in some of the other articles on that page, which use
the later version of the definition of color.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what haltingBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a
decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller as in >>>>>>> input, reports to its caller because its caller will proceed to do >>>>>>> the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject it >>>>>>> based on logical misunderstandings, especially his conflation of >>>>>>> execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
quaint misuse of the word.
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an observational >>>>>> phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and don’t >>>>> count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as were
rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm (which is what
they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what "physical
color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" as
when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very specific >>>> colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that article is
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 07:22:59 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 2:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically limited its >>>> usage to a non-standard usage when it did so.
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>>>>> don’t count as true, physical colors." --
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what halting >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision a halt decider, given a *description* of its caller >>>>>>>>>>>>> as in input, reports to its caller because its caller will >>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed to do the exact opposite causing a logicalBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, as a >>>>>>>>>>>> quaint misuse of the word.
contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> it based on logical misunderstandings, especially his >>>>>>>>>>>>> conflation of execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an
observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, it is >>>>>>>>>>>> one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, as >>>>>>>>>> were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow specturm >>>>>>>>>> (which is what they seem to be talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what
"physical color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce "Orange" >>>>>>>>>> as when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that >>>>>>>>>> definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 very >>>>>>>>>> specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that >>>>>>>>>> article is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or truth) works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out with
their conclusionL
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in
which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is
show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view that
you can just redefine words to say what you want.
This is shown also in some of the other articles on that page, which use
the later version of the definition of color.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:04:10 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,033 |