----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<fcc5e5be-d711-47b6-add8-eb4f9b776d47n@googlegroups.com> 504dafe0
@REPLY:
<1061a114-37f5-40c6-b0f6-5b4de246d5ean@googlegroups.com> 4aeebc42
@REPLYADDR Jeffrey Rubard
<theleasthappyfella@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> <1061a114-37f5-40c6-b0f6-5b4de246d5ean@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<fcc5e5be-d711-47b6-add8-eb4f9b776d47n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:04:04 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> 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.
"Does that `work`?"
Not obviously, no.
--- 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