Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.logic > #254814

Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/21/23 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/20/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/23 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2023 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/23 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 5:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 3:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 3:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 10:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2023 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed P(P) is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of P(P) correctly simulated by H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because in the first case H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has already aborted its simulation of its input 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in the second case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this has not yet occurred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By what definition of "Correctly Simulated"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that H aborts its simulation has NO 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect on the direct execution of the machine, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so all you are saying that H has shut its eyes 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and said "I don't see it, so it didn't happen".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just FALSEHOOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I now refer to P(P) as D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it cannot see the details below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not the question being asked. The fact 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is impossible to design an H that can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulate its input to a halting state 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just proves that H can not correctly decider 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that its input is Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does NOT mean that the input can't be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting, just that H can never prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF H doesn't ever abort its simulation, then 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, the D built on that H is non-halting, but 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H never gives that answer, so it is still 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each H gets a DIFFERENT D, since they include 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H that the "pathological test" is to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed on, so the behavior of one D built on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a different H doesn't apply, and for correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning, you really need to give each one a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different name. Reusing the same name for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different machine, and then trying to confuse 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which one is which is just a sign of being 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally deceptive to try to tell a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system based on an open 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source x86 emulator. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system enables one C function to execute 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another C function in debug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step mode. When H simulates D it creates a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate process context for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D with its own memory, stack and virtual 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registers. H is able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate D simulating itself, thus the only 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit to recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations is RAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But D is not SPECIFIED in a seperate context, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but share code space with H, which means it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails to be truely distinctly, like a Turing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is NOT a full "separate process context" as 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the contexts share code space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)   // uses x86 emulator 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to simulate its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14   D(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally by reaching its own final 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state at line 09.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But D correctly simulated by a correct simulator 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would, at least as long as you are using an H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that answer H(D,D) as 0, as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates N steps of D until H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly predicts through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the type of mathematical induction used by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzers that D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is the wrong prediction. It needs to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predict if the input when run will halt, as THAT 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the Halting Question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just like Jack's question posed to Jack, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT could understand that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, and you just seem too stupid to understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, you are just admitting to working on POOP 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of Halting, and ALL your statements are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int factorial(int n)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if(n==0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      return(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return(n*factorial(n-1));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AProVE correctly determines that factorial(5) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boiling the key behavior of entire function to this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f(x) → f(x-1) :|: x > 0 && x <= 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > Wrong Question leads to incorrect answer, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all your work goes down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the drain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AProVE is the largest termination analysis project 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it probably uses the RIGHT question, will 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the program halt when actually run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will probably also tell you that D(D) will Halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H(D,D) returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, it likely shows you are wrong about everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we use the criteria:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H ever terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are ADMITTING to working on a different 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, and lying about what you are doing. Thank you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for being honest about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben is just pointing out the ERRORS in your logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people that lack a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO, it is a TRUE statement. H is NOT a correct HALT 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DECIDER.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be a valid POOP decider with your altered 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria, but it isn't correct as a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't get to change the meaning of words, attempting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to just shows you are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting is a property of the original machine, not of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the partial simulation that H does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return value of 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H to mean either that P(P) does not halt or P(P) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means you H need to return BOTH a 0 and 1 at the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same time, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. Not the least little bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A return value of 0 also indicates that input D 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally targets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H by doing the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a return of 1 signals that it halts, which it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand English.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Problem asks if the Machine Described by the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It Does (for the H that you are cliaming to be correct)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the correct answer is YES / Halting, and you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are PROVED to be a LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am the one that is a Liar then why did you already say 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 1 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong answer and are now saying that it is the right 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did I say that 1 is the wrong answer to THAT question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What happens when H returns 1 to D?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it doesn't, so it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>> No H can possibly be defined that can be embedded within
>>>>>>>>> Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>> consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, which is why it is impossible to make a correct Halt 
>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason for this is that Ĥ does the opposite of both
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy and Ĥ.qn. This makes the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory for embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not SELF contradicotory, but just contradictory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK that may make sense. One of our very rare agreements. The
>>>>>>> question does not contradict itself it contradicts every answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contradictory questions are also incorrect questions.
>>>>>>> Likewise Jack's question contradicts every answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't contradict the answer to the actual question, 
>>>>> If this is true then you can say which of yes/no are correct for 
>>>>> Jack to
>>>>> reply and which of true/false that H can return.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SO, you are just to dumb to understand 
>>>
>>> That simply dodges my yes/no question.
>>>
>>> My IQ is probably higher than yours. Did you pass the Mensa test?
>>> In any case creative genius has its algorithm:
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
>>
>> I never took the Mensa test, as I saw no benefit to taking it.
>>
>>>
>>> If this is true then you can say which of yes/no are correct for
>>> Jack to reply and which of true/false that H can return.
>>>
>>
>> How do you get that conclusion? You are working off BAD LOGIC.
>>
> In other words you are saying that when a question contradicts every
> answer From X that the reason that X cannot correctly answer the
> question has nothing to do with the fact that the question contradicts
> every answer from X instead it must be the case that X is very stupid.
> 

You have bad logic because you have the wrong question, asked at the 
wrong time.

This just proves how stupid you are.

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:43 -0500
  Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:13 -0700
    Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 17:38 -0500
      Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 18:01 -0700
        Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 20:09 -0500
          Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 18:19 -0700
            Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:42 -0500
            Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:42 -0500
    Re: Refutation of [nothing] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-19 23:43 +0100
      Re: Refutation of [nothing] Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 17:59 -0700
        Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 20:05 -0500
  Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 20:45 -0400
    Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 20:02 -0500
      Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2023-06-19 21:13 -0400
        Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:46 -0500
          Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 07:19 -0400
            Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:02 -0500
              Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:46 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 14:20 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 13:33 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:32 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:38 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:46 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:27 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 17:56 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:19 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 18:52 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:59 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 20:41 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:36 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 22:32 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 21:59 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 07:38 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 12:32 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 19:01 -0400
        Re: Refutation of [nothing] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 12:48 +0100
          Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue ... olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:03 -0500
          Re: Refutation of [nothing] (Ben Bacarisse lies about this see below) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 13:00 -0500
            Re: Refutation of [nothing] (Peter Olcott lies about this see below) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 21:06 -0400

csiph-web