All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:37:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks --
he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad
hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a
response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this is
a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able to >>>> see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young
child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got
special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is
continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my
view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for
continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for
all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what he
does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from these
that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is a good
thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem
attack.
/Flibble
No I don't. The following are Damon's actual words and do constitute an ad hominem attack:
"Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using."
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks --
he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad
hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a
response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this is
a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able to
see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young
child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got
special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is
continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my
view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for
continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for
all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what he
does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from these
that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is a good
thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem
attack.
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending
arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad hominem attacks;
each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a response to falsehoods, delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with eachother
with little to chose between them. As already said this is a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able to
see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young child
going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's studied the
subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for continually
opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending
arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of computation
theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad hominem attacks;
each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with eachother
with little to chose between them. As already said this is a mistaken
impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able to
see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young child
going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got special
knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is continually
reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my view) drawing
attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this newsgroup
really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's studied the
subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for continually
opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for all to see
that he does so regularly.
/Flibble
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:37:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- >>>>>> he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad
hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a
response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this
is a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able
to see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young >>>>> child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got >>>>> special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is
continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my >>>>> view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for
continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for
all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what he
does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from these
that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is a good
thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem
attack.
/Flibble
No I don't. The following are Damon's actual words and do constitute an
ad hominem attack:
"Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using."
I recognise those words, yes. They are not an ad hominem attack, they
are the simple truth. Peter Olcott's (possibly deliberate)
misunderstanding of technical words and phrases is at the root of much
of the "debate" in this newsgroup, hence highly pertinent to the
discussion.
Drawing attention to it is NOT an ad hominem attack. Neither is calling somebody stupid or a liar, provided it is not being used to prevent discussion of the substace.
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:37:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks --
he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad
hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a
response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this is
a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able to >>>> see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young
child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got
special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is
continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my
view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for
continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for
all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what he
does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from these
that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is a good
thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem
attack.
/Flibble
No I don't. The following are Damon's actual words and do constitute an ad hominem attack:
"Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using."
/Flibble
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:53:53 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:37:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- >>>>>>> he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad
hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a
response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this >>>>>> is a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able >>>>>> to see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young >>>>>> child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got >>>>>> special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is >>>>>> continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my >>>>>> view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for >>>>>> continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for >>>>> all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what he
does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from these
that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is a good
thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem
attack.
/Flibble
No I don't. The following are Damon's actual words and do constitute an
ad hominem attack:
"Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using."
I recognise those words, yes. They are not an ad hominem attack, they
are the simple truth. Peter Olcott's (possibly deliberate)
misunderstanding of technical words and phrases is at the root of much
of the "debate" in this newsgroup, hence highly pertinent to the
discussion.
Drawing attention to it is NOT an ad hominem attack. Neither is calling
somebody stupid or a liar, provided it is not being used to prevent
discussion of the substace.
False. They are an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
/Flibble
On 7/20/2025 3:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:37:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- >>>>>> he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad
hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a
response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this is >>>>> a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be able to >>>>> see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like a young
child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5, how he's got >>>>> special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is wrong. RD is >>>>> continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and (ill-advisedly in my >>>>> view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much for >>>>> continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there for
all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what he
does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from these
that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is a good
thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem
attack.
/Flibble
No I don't. The following are Damon's actual words and do constitute
an ad
hominem attack:
"Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using."
/Flibble
Yet that is correct
Real people stand by their words, cowards hide behind pseudonyms.
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
On 7/20/25 3:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending
arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
I guess Mr Flibble is just showing he doesn't know what he is talking
about, and can't even use the right words.
Note, the phrase in learn by ROTE (not wrote, which is the past tense of write), and in fact, I DON'T learn by rote, as my learning style is NOT
based on memorization, but by understanding the bascis principles and
how to derive things.
Also, "Originality" in logic, when talking about established things is
not necesarily "good", as the truth has been established, and just needs
to be explained to those that don't understand it, *IF* they are willing
to learn.
"Originality" if not backed by an understanding of the basic principles, tends to result in just the spouting of falsehoods. It may be good when writting fiction, but technical things need to be fully grounded in the
base of the system, something it seems neither you or Olcott understand,
and thus your "original" ideas tend to be just flat out lies based on
wrong meaning of words.
And, as pointed out, you also show you don't understand the meaning of
ad hominem, as I always start my argument on a factual basis, showing
where the argument is wrong on the basis of the facts, and only then use
the repeated use of that to show the mental deficiency of the speaker.
Ad Hominem specifically says that the quoted reason to claim the
argument is wrong is because of something about the person.
All you are doing is proving that you are just as bad at knowing what
you are talkinga about as Peter, and since you have chosen to hide your
real identity, that you are really just a TROLL, and your comments meaningless.
On 7/20/25 4:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:53:53 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 20:37:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:57:26 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks >>>>>>>> --
he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the >>>>>>>> neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
You're wrong. Richard Damon has a thorough understanding of
computation theory and associated mathematics. He doesn't do ad >>>>>>> hominem attacks; each and every slight aimed at Peter Olcott is a >>>>>>> response to falsehoods,
delusion, and let's be honest, lies too; NOT a response to the
falsehoods on the basis of who said them.
I don't like the way RD posts, either; it has given rise to the
impression that there are two equal louts slugging it out with
eachother with little to chose between them. As already said this >>>>>>> is a mistaken impression.
I don't think you have the mathematical education needed to be
able to see the immense difference between PO and RD. PO is like >>>>>>> a young child going around shouting very loudly that 2 + 2 = 5,
how he's got special knowledge about it, and how everybody else is >>>>>>> wrong. RD is continually reminding people that 2 + 2 = 4 and
(ill-advisedly in my view) drawing attention to PO's demerits a
very great deal.
The halting theorem, and the proof of it most popular in this
newsgroup really are at the level of 2 + 2 = 4 to anybody who's
studied the subject at all. You can't really blame RD too much
for continually opposing PO's falsehoods. RD cares about the
truth.
/Flibble
You are even less credible than Damon, falsly claiming that Damon
doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks when the evidence is there
for all to see that he does so regularly.
Perhaps you have a non-standard idea of what an ad hominem attack
actually is. What it is is "Peter said it, so it must be wrong."
Richard Damon has never written anything like that. Instead, what
he does is point out falsehoods in PO's writing, and deduces from
these that PO must be stupid/a liar/whatever. I don't think this is >>>>> a good thing continually to write, but that doesn't make it an ad
hominem attack.
/Flibble
No I don't. The following are Damon's actual words and do constitute
an ad hominem attack:
"Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you
are using."
I recognise those words, yes. They are not an ad hominem attack, they
are the simple truth. Peter Olcott's (possibly deliberate)
misunderstanding of technical words and phrases is at the root of much
of the "debate" in this newsgroup, hence highly pertinent to the
discussion.
Drawing attention to it is NOT an ad hominem attack. Neither is
calling somebody stupid or a liar, provided it is not being used to
prevent discussion of the substace.
False. They are an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
/Flibble
FALSE. Proving you don't understand the words you used, and by
apparently INTENTIONALLY editing out the context, just more proof that
you are just a stupid troll.
Note, the statement doesn't say the statement is wrong because they were
said by Peter, but that the words say something wrong, and the likely
reason he said that is that he doesn't know what the words mean.
On 20/07/2025 23:04, Richard Damon wrote:
Real people stand by their words, cowards hide behind pseudonyms.
In your country and mine, that can be argued. There are several
countries around the world, however, in which to post at all takes
courage, and pseudonyms are the first line of defence against the
state's retribution.
(No, I'm not suggesting that this applies to "Mr Flibble". Just making
the general point.)
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 18:04:49 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/25 3:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- he
offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the neverending
arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
I guess Mr Flibble is just showing he doesn't know what he is talking
about, and can't even use the right words.
Note, the phrase in learn by ROTE (not wrote, which is the past tense of
write), and in fact, I DON'T learn by rote, as my learning style is NOT
based on memorization, but by understanding the bascis principles and
how to derive things.
Also, "Originality" in logic, when talking about established things is
not necesarily "good", as the truth has been established, and just needs
to be explained to those that don't understand it, *IF* they are willing
to learn.
"Originality" if not backed by an understanding of the basic principles,
tends to result in just the spouting of falsehoods. It may be good when
writting fiction, but technical things need to be fully grounded in the
base of the system, something it seems neither you or Olcott understand,
and thus your "original" ideas tend to be just flat out lies based on
wrong meaning of words.
And, as pointed out, you also show you don't understand the meaning of
ad hominem, as I always start my argument on a factual basis, showing
where the argument is wrong on the basis of the facts, and only then use
the repeated use of that to show the mental deficiency of the speaker.
Ad Hominem specifically says that the quoted reason to claim the
argument is wrong is because of something about the person.
Oh but I do know the meaning of ad hominem, dear, as I pointed out one
such logical fallacy that you made when trying to debate Olcott (see elsewhere in this thread). At this point you are basically lying: not a
good look, mate.
All you are doing is proving that you are just as bad at knowing what
you are talkinga about as Peter, and since you have chosen to hide your
real identity, that you are really just a TROLL, and your comments
meaningless.
Obviously using a psuedonym does not mean that what I write is
meaningless: you are not very good at this are you?
/Flibble
On 7/21/25 12:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 18:04:49 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Where you made the fallacy of taking out of context.
On 7/20/25 3:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks --
he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
I guess Mr Flibble is just showing he doesn't know what he is talking
about, and can't even use the right words.
Note, the phrase in learn by ROTE (not wrote, which is the past tense
of write), and in fact, I DON'T learn by rote, as my learning style is
NOT based on memorization, but by understanding the bascis principles
and how to derive things.
Also, "Originality" in logic, when talking about established things is
not necesarily "good", as the truth has been established, and just
needs to be explained to those that don't understand it, *IF* they are
willing to learn.
"Originality" if not backed by an understanding of the basic
principles,
tends to result in just the spouting of falsehoods. It may be good
when writting fiction, but technical things need to be fully grounded
in the base of the system, something it seems neither you or Olcott
understand,
and thus your "original" ideas tend to be just flat out lies based on
wrong meaning of words.
And, as pointed out, you also show you don't understand the meaning of
ad hominem, as I always start my argument on a factual basis, showing
where the argument is wrong on the basis of the facts, and only then
use the repeated use of that to show the mental deficiency of the
speaker. Ad Hominem specifically says that the quoted reason to claim
the argument is wrong is because of something about the person.
Oh but I do know the meaning of ad hominem, dear, as I pointed out one
such logical fallacy that you made when trying to debate Olcott (see
elsewhere in this thread). At this point you are basically lying: not
a good look, mate.
All you are showing is you are nearly as much of a liar are Olcott, as
you need to resort to fallacies and lies to support your position.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 19:14:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/21/25 12:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 18:04:49 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Where you made the fallacy of taking out of context.
On 7/20/25 3:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks --
he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
I guess Mr Flibble is just showing he doesn't know what he is talking
about, and can't even use the right words.
Note, the phrase in learn by ROTE (not wrote, which is the past tense
of write), and in fact, I DON'T learn by rote, as my learning style is >>>> NOT based on memorization, but by understanding the bascis principles
and how to derive things.
Also, "Originality" in logic, when talking about established things is >>>> not necesarily "good", as the truth has been established, and just
needs to be explained to those that don't understand it, *IF* they are >>>> willing to learn.
"Originality" if not backed by an understanding of the basic
principles,
tends to result in just the spouting of falsehoods. It may be good
when writting fiction, but technical things need to be fully grounded
in the base of the system, something it seems neither you or Olcott
understand,
and thus your "original" ideas tend to be just flat out lies based on
wrong meaning of words.
And, as pointed out, you also show you don't understand the meaning of >>>> ad hominem, as I always start my argument on a factual basis, showing
where the argument is wrong on the basis of the facts, and only then
use the repeated use of that to show the mental deficiency of the
speaker. Ad Hominem specifically says that the quoted reason to claim
the argument is wrong is because of something about the person.
Oh but I do know the meaning of ad hominem, dear, as I pointed out one
such logical fallacy that you made when trying to debate Olcott (see
elsewhere in this thread). At this point you are basically lying: not
a good look, mate.
No, liar, you created the ad hominem a priori to your subsequent argument
so it was not taking anything out of context.
All you are showing is you are nearly as much of a liar are Olcott, as
you need to resort to fallacies and lies to support your position.
You are the liar, as I have shown.
/Flibble
On 7/22/25 12:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 19:14:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/21/25 12:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 18:04:49 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Where you made the fallacy of taking out of context.
On 7/20/25 3:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- >>>>>> he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
I guess Mr Flibble is just showing he doesn't know what he is
talking about, and can't even use the right words.
Note, the phrase in learn by ROTE (not wrote, which is the past
tense of write), and in fact, I DON'T learn by rote, as my learning
style is NOT based on memorization, but by understanding the bascis
principles and how to derive things.
Also, "Originality" in logic, when talking about established things
is not necesarily "good", as the truth has been established, and
just needs to be explained to those that don't understand it, *IF*
they are willing to learn.
"Originality" if not backed by an understanding of the basic
principles,
tends to result in just the spouting of falsehoods. It may be good
when writting fiction, but technical things need to be fully
grounded in the base of the system, something it seems neither you
or Olcott understand,
and thus your "original" ideas tend to be just flat out lies based
on wrong meaning of words.
And, as pointed out, you also show you don't understand the meaning
of ad hominem, as I always start my argument on a factual basis,
showing where the argument is wrong on the basis of the facts, and
only then use the repeated use of that to show the mental deficiency >>>>> of the speaker. Ad Hominem specifically says that the quoted reason
to claim the argument is wrong is because of something about the
person.
Oh but I do know the meaning of ad hominem, dear, as I pointed out
one such logical fallacy that you made when trying to debate Olcott
(see elsewhere in this thread). At this point you are basically
lying: not a good look, mate.
No, liar, you created the ad hominem a priori to your subsequent
argument so it was not taking anything out of context.
Sure it is.
Note, the statement you quoted doesn't even say the statemwent is wrong BECAUSE of his mental condition.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 22:17:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/22/25 12:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 19:14:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/21/25 12:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 18:04:49 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Where you made the fallacy of taking out of context.
On 7/20/25 3:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
All Damon has is learn by wrote preaching and ad hominem attacks -- >>>>>>> he offers nothing of originality, interest or substance to the
neverending arguments he has with Olcott.
/Flibble
I guess Mr Flibble is just showing he doesn't know what he is
talking about, and can't even use the right words.
Note, the phrase in learn by ROTE (not wrote, which is the past
tense of write), and in fact, I DON'T learn by rote, as my learning >>>>>> style is NOT based on memorization, but by understanding the bascis >>>>>> principles and how to derive things.
Also, "Originality" in logic, when talking about established things >>>>>> is not necesarily "good", as the truth has been established, and
just needs to be explained to those that don't understand it, *IF* >>>>>> they are willing to learn.
"Originality" if not backed by an understanding of the basic
principles,
tends to result in just the spouting of falsehoods. It may be good >>>>>> when writting fiction, but technical things need to be fully
grounded in the base of the system, something it seems neither you >>>>>> or Olcott understand,
and thus your "original" ideas tend to be just flat out lies based >>>>>> on wrong meaning of words.
And, as pointed out, you also show you don't understand the meaning >>>>>> of ad hominem, as I always start my argument on a factual basis,
showing where the argument is wrong on the basis of the facts, and >>>>>> only then use the repeated use of that to show the mental deficiency >>>>>> of the speaker. Ad Hominem specifically says that the quoted reason >>>>>> to claim the argument is wrong is because of something about the
person.
Oh but I do know the meaning of ad hominem, dear, as I pointed out
one such logical fallacy that you made when trying to debate Olcott
(see elsewhere in this thread). At this point you are basically
lying: not a good look, mate.
No, liar, you created the ad hominem a priori to your subsequent
argument so it was not taking anything out of context.
Sure it is.
Note, the statement you quoted doesn't even say the statemwent is wrong
BECAUSE of his mental condition.
The implication is there, liar.
/Flibble
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:35:26 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,669 |