----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<1061a114-37f5-40c6-b0f6-5b4de246d5ean@googlegroups.com> 4aeebc42
@REPLY:
<fab169d9-f52b-440f-bb97-da109e97d6ecn@googlegroups.com> 34edbd41
@REPLYADDR Jeffrey Rubard
<jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Jeffrey Rubard
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
<cabd7f3b-4c8b-4ebe-84a9-9dfd10409259n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<9f4cd9a1-07d2-427a-9648-053c160fefb1n@googlegroups.com> <a431d305-ab7b-4dc0-b475-950aa138705en@googlegroups.com>
<edc644ce-b6a7-441b-b747-d52ccbfb8ec8n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<02fe981d-0578-4c96-b5b7-93d326ade079n@googlegroups.com> <3ec5021c-53fe-47ae-af4a-20d5cbc06312n@googlegroups.com>
2@dont-email.me> <598e94c6-917d-47d9-979e-13ec3a1a9c35n@googlegroups.com>
1@dont-email.me> GNG9.48569@fx18.iad> 4@dont-email.me>
vBI8.196204@fx15.iad> 1@gioia.aioe.org> PXw7.96987@fx45.iad>
1@dont-email.me> 9sn9.288852@fx17.iad> 3@dont-email.me>
iS99.156398@fx16.iad> 5@dont-email.me>
<a6b82a4d-21e4-4496-b12c-272fcf609cc8n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<946435d5-b8e0-45c5-a68c-b56fd3e52261n@googlegroups.com> <94d79b11-5884-4dc7-810e-226d7611f65fn@googlegroups.com>
<61dd631f-2dcf-4d29-9a6b-bc37b23840aan@googlegroups.com> <950192e7-440f-4e41-adc2-f96b29ff7d1dn@googlegroups.com>
<0952f211-cb43-4cd9-bdf1-3ac0c6ada073n@googlegroups.com> <84bddacd-608f-4f4c-873d-697b9b3be160n@googlegroups.com>
<b7104005-b767-4032-8ee4-05fe6b7db38fn@googlegroups.com> <4928a741-23c9-456b-8736-36ace5fe4807n@googlegroups.com>
<a8dfc68c-01a9-4c8f-8dd1-8a3e3261a919n@googlegroups.com> <f86eec7b-3441-4897-a0e2-7fcf1f3aca8fn@googlegroups.com>
<be32c677-f8a8-488f-91a9-b858e60b1872n@googlegroups.com> <a6abf032-38d3-4428-8043-929c922ac015n@googlegroups.com>
<eae1369b-5463-4cb9-b0da-57de0d66c6a6n@googlegroups.com> <175d4275-c114-45d0-a20e-8631a78fe7cen@googlegroups.com>
<152860ed-952a-4a26-b7d8-a5cb2b3aaeb1n@googlegroups.com> <2de25265-badf-4948-9a4e-f33062680b5dn@googlegroups.com>
<b11ba96e-802a-48e7-a18b-92d7c65f87cfn@googlegroups.com> <6489e681-55df-4476-bc71-ef6ed9cbab4bn@googlegroups.com>
<af74e910-bf26-4642-95ed-2484726999a3n@googlegroups.com> <b882de1d-744d-4686-8b93-3414f67ca0c4n@googlegroups.com>
<d37a7cd1-ef0e-4368-851f-9e402f5a72c6n@googlegroups.com> <a328c2f8-1faa-4809-a7ab-700c369000adn@googlegroups.com>
<9c487ba0-f376-441c-8e3c-a7612cae1466n@googlegroups.com> <18b3d24f-24c3-49da-8160-462b2f70187an@googlegroups.com>
<fab169d9-f52b-440f-bb97-da109e97d6ecn@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<1061a114-37f5-40c6-b0f6-5b4de246d5ean@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:36:24 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:33:07 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:39:53 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 4:01:27 PM UTC-8,
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:06:12 PM UTC-8,
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 1:21:38 PM UTC-8,
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 4:37:07 PM
UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 5:19:26 PM
UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:44:23 PM
UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 8:25:59
AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at
1:15:28 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at
8:29:55 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at
2:23:29 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 16, 2023
at 9:32:36 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15,
2023 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 15,
2023 at 9:03:13 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, January
14, 2023 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday,
January 12, 2023 at 6:09:00 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday,
January 10, 2023 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday,
January 9, 2023 at 2:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday,
January 9, 2023 at 2:10:35 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:49:26 PM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 10:38:34 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 3:38:27 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
On 1/7/2023 4:55 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> On 1/6/2023 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> On 1/6/23 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/23 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 9:10:55 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2023 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 6, 2023 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-8, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rubard wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2023 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-8, olcott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! It`s a dumb f`in subterfuge that leaves the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "truth-value" of the statements I`ve made in the thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) indeterminate and 2) evaluable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "But I already said that mathematics and computability were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dipshit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost no one understands that and there are exceptions to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this rule.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the Goldbach Conjecture requires an infinite proof then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s conjecture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You can`t say this in a psych ward. Church and Turing proved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computability and `mathematizability` were not the same thing."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> In programming language theory and proof theory, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Curry-Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry-Howard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> proofs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard correspondence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> And you don`t seem to understand that there is a difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> between Provable / Knowable and True.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> Provable requires a finite back-chained inference from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion to be proved to its premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> True requires a back-chained finite or infinite inference from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> the conclusion to be proved to its true premises.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>> Knowable is the same as True with finite back-chained inference.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> Right, so why does G being unprovable means it is untrue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>> True only requires the chain to exist, and allows it to be
infinite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> True in F requires that a finite chain exists in F otherwise there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> is no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>> semantic connection in F from G in F to its truth maker axioms in
F.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> Read what you just said last time (emphisis added), that *TRUE*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> requires a ... finite or **INFINITE** inference ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> Yes that is not the same as True in F. A guy with a 120 IQ
would notice
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> that I already made this distinction several times, unless they had
a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> neurological disorder that disrupted their short term memory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> Since a "Back Chain" only can exist in a given Theory, they ARE
the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> same, and "To be Proved" inplies the "Theory" you are working in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>> That {cats}
{living things} is not limited to any theory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>> We determine that {cats} {living things} by back-chained
inference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>> to its natural language axioms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> No, because the "Theory" is what DEFINES what a {cat} actually is
and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> what a {living things> actually is and what {are} means.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> For instance, does {cat} mean "felis catus" (the domestic cat) or
all of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> the family "Felidae", or does it refer to a "Caterpillar Tractor",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>>> amoundg many other possible meanings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> A knowledge ontology takes the place of model theory and specifies
all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> of these details. A unique GUID anchors each unique sense meaning
in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> this set. I have said this many times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "What`s a GUID? Oh, that`s not a concept of the philosophy of
language."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
It is a concept of the computational philosophy of language, it is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
128-bit integer used by computer systems to uniquely identify a specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
software process. It is also used By Doug Lenat`s CYC team
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
mathematically formalizing natural language semantics.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
think there was a "The one with the RFID" episode in your last cycle of
this scam.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could that be?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Was
this around the year 2010?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it could have been.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "That seems irrelevant."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I
could see how you would think that. This highly pseudo-intellectual `dog
and pony show`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
(what they know of) Prolog seems irrelevant, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Oh, you`ll see."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mean
it`s dumb, and poorly posed as argumentation on the topic at all. (I
could believe the individuals promulgating it were vicious, etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At any
rate, "categorically" I wrote them if I wrote them, etc. (No, they have
an "app" for that, meaning a fake legal "devisement" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable
keeping on muddying waters, but do you get the idea of this yet?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That`s the
"great enlightenment" about bibliography, which does apply to "contested"
academic papers as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For the
audience: Yeah, it`s an intellectual-property scam I`ve had run on me several
times. You mostly just "take it easy".)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So how would I know what`s true here?"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you start
to figure it out (and in "fits and starts").
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But listening to
"bafflegab" about it is actually not a plan.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Loretta Lynn
actually sang on her records" kind of stuff, sometimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So about dreams of
cover from some "big fib"... We grow up and get over it, eventually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and if it somehow
has to be "still rock and roll to you", it`s 2023 for everybody and
we really can`t do much about facts like that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You don`t understand.
The big fib is the big fib."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, mystagogues of
deception, never met any in my life, no idea how to handle it, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "No, like, you see, Fibonacci..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will either one of us
know what you are talking about here?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Meanwhile, the Rubard
fellow`s `claim` is really pretty interesting compared to this `crackpot`
garbage. Like a Richard Stallman of publishing, or something."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actual Tech Professionals: --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "You guys are redefining `piss-poor
crackpots`, pushing the boundaries of the genre."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "We don`t mean it, though."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "That`s a kind of crackpot."
> > > > > > > > > > > > "No, seriously, it is a scam like
you say, we`re just not `letting on`."
> > > > > > > > > > > > "That`s actually one of the meanings
of the word `crackpot`. Did you not know that?"
> > > > > > > > > > > Good to know, right?
> > > > > > > > > > Like, I didn`t make that up.
> > > > > > > > > No, really. One of the meanings of the term
`crackpot` is for when you are *just so convinced* that
> > > > > > > > > you are `putting one over` on people with
material such as we see here.
> > > > > > > > Update: And, like I said, "I wrote `em".
> > > > > > > > "You know what... maybe there`s some kind of
outside chance that`s true... and maybe not."
> > > > > > > > Life is more like that, you know.
> > > > > > > At any rate, I (and presumably any actual
computer professionals) are confused why it was cross-posted to comp.theory.
> > > > > > So are we done fouling their newsgroup?
> > > > > Guess so!
> > > > Because that is really poor stuff, really poor.
> > > It`s just not possible to "respect" it, even as malicious hoaxing.
> > Wider World: To whatever extent Usenet is "still a thing",
crossposting is poor form and I didn`t cross-post the item. "Yes, that`s right."
> "It hardly matters."
> Because Usenet is totally obsolete social media, yes. Otherwise
not, it was a "big thing".
> "So why do you use it?"
> To clear my head, etc.
"How`s that do that?"
By putting a thought in a semi-permanent, semi-relevant public record.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441