On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational
peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational
peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational
peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite time? >>>>>
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, projective >>>> determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational
peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite time? >>>>>>
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering,
projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each other, >>>>> then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they don't. >>>>>
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational
peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite >>>>>>> time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering,
projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each other, >>>>>> then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they don't. >>>>>>
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out". >>>>>
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
On 4/3/2026 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational
peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite >>>>>>>> time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering,
projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each other, >>>>>>> then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they don't. >>>>>>>
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out". >>>>>>
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
In other words you fail to understand that the
body of knowledge expressed in formal language
and formalized natural language is a semantic
tautology expressed as relations between finite
strings.
On 04/04/2026 12:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational >>>>>>>>>> peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite >>>>>>>>> time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering,
projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each >>>>>>>> other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they >>>>>>>> don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy out". >>>>>>>
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
In other words you fail to understand that the
body of knowledge expressed in formal language
and formalized natural language is a semantic
tautology expressed as relations between finite
strings.
No, I'm saying both that that's a three-legged dog,
and, doesn't know what a three-legged dog is.
On 4/4/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/04/2026 12:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational >>>>>>>>>>> peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite >>>>>>>>>> time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, >>>>>>>>> projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each >>>>>>>>> other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they >>>>>>>>> don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy >>>>>>>> out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
In other words you fail to understand that the
body of knowledge expressed in formal language
and formalized natural language is a semantic
tautology expressed as relations between finite
strings.
No, I'm saying both that that's a three-legged dog,
and, doesn't know what a three-legged dog is.
So you quit being rational.
You do seem rational in your videos.
On 04/04/2026 08:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/4/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/04/2026 12:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational >>>>>>>>>>>> peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite >>>>>>>>>>> time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, >>>>>>>>>> projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each >>>>>>>>>> other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they >>>>>>>>>> don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy >>>>>>>>> out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well
at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection,
is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness.
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker
variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x)
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism,
since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
In other words you fail to understand that the
body of knowledge expressed in formal language
and formalized natural language is a semantic
tautology expressed as relations between finite
strings.
No, I'm saying both that that's a three-legged dog,
and, doesn't know what a three-legged dog is.
So you quit being rational.
You do seem rational in your videos.
Perhaps you've heard of particle/wave duality,
it's a super-classical concept in quantum mechanics.
Then, how about the radical/rational?
On 4/4/2026 10:44 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/04/2026 08:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/4/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/04/2026 12:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational >>>>>>>>>>>>> peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some finite >>>>>>>>>>>> time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, >>>>>>>>>>> projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each >>>>>>>>>>> other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they >>>>>>>>>>> don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given,
the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance
of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse,
then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy >>>>>>>>>> out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well >>>>>>>>>> at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection, >>>>>>>>>> is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness. >>>>>>>>>>
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker >>>>>>>>>> variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates
for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher,
for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x) >>>>>>>
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism, >>>>>>>> since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
In other words you fail to understand that the
body of knowledge expressed in formal language
and formalized natural language is a semantic
tautology expressed as relations between finite
strings.
No, I'm saying both that that's a three-legged dog,
and, doesn't know what a three-legged dog is.
So you quit being rational.
You do seem rational in your videos.
Perhaps you've heard of particle/wave duality,
it's a super-classical concept in quantum mechanics.
Then, how about the radical/rational?
That would seem to have nothing to do with a
finite list of atomic facts of general knowledge.
On 04/05/2026 04:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/4/2026 10:44 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/04/2026 08:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/4/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/04/2026 12:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 04:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 5:10 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/3/2026 1:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 11:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/03/2026 12:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 02/04/2026 23:58, olcott wrote:
To be able to properly ground this in existing foundational >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peer reviewed papers will take some time.
Do you think 100 years would be enough, or at least some >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
time?
If there are at least three regularities/rulialities,
well-foundedness (Zermelo, Russell) and
well-ordering (Choice, Ono, Zorn) and
well-dispersion (Martin, univalency, the illative, covering, >>>>>>>>>>>> projective
determinacy)
and it's readily demonstrable they can be set up against each >>>>>>>>>>>> other,
then it needs be there must be an account of how and why they >>>>>>>>>>>> don't.
All these things have been around
since more than 100 years ago.
Assuming 1) we're not bots, and 2) they are bots,
then perhaps usual bot-ware just follows what it's given, >>>>>>>>>>> the blindered hindered course of the invincible ignorance >>>>>>>>>>> of the inductive inference directly to inductive impasse, >>>>>>>>>>> then as sort of like "garbage in garbage out", "crazy in crazy >>>>>>>>>>> out".
Since, or if, any sort of individual expression is as well >>>>>>>>>>> at least in part as an aspect of psychological projection, >>>>>>>>>>> is among reasons why it's a good idea an idea of goodness. >>>>>>>>>>>
Then the usual account of logic may include that the weaker >>>>>>>>>>> variety of logicism is a psychologism, then that Socrates >>>>>>>>>>> for example wasn't that profound a technical philosopher, >>>>>>>>>>> for what makes sense for the common man, not what makes
a common man of sense.
When we start with something like the subset of
Russell's "basic facts" that pertain to general
knowledge as axioms and then have semantic entailment
specified syntactically as the only inference step
we derive the entire body of general knowledge that
can be expressed in formal (or formalized natural)
language.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-atomism/
Wishful thinking.
That's empiricism with all its faults and baggage
exactly enough as so stated.
I am not talking about logical-atomism AT ALL.
I am taking the single notion "atomic fact"
from it and utterly discarding all the rest.
The actual ENTIRE basis for "atomic facts" is
stipulated relations between finite strings.
"cats" <are> "animals"
I'm not a fan of either of Quine's "dogmas of empiricism",
When the otherwise meaningless finite string Bachelor(x) is
stipulated to mean:
Bachelor(x) := ¬Married(x) ∧ Male(x) ∧ Adult(x) ∧ Human(x) >>>>>>>>
Then Quine's objection to the
analytic/synthetic distinction based on synonymity dissolves.
and there's another for an account of a _stronger_
logicist positivism, alongside a strong mathematical platonism, >>>>>>>>> since thusly otherwise it's un-founded your well-founding.
You seem to be far too hung up on all of the baggage
that goes with the conventional way of dividing all
these things up. I UTTERLY REJECT ALL THAT BAGGAGE.
Russell's paradox is readily demonstrated in usual accounts
of Russell's theory after Russell's retro-thesis.
ALL PARADOXES are merely incoherence misconstrued.
It's fine for closed categories, yet, so are
many weaker accounts.
My notion of "formal system" contains 100% of ALL
of the details of the entire body of general knowledge
about anything.
Three-legged dog.
In other words you fail to understand that the
body of knowledge expressed in formal language
and formalized natural language is a semantic
tautology expressed as relations between finite
strings.
No, I'm saying both that that's a three-legged dog,
and, doesn't know what a three-legged dog is.
So you quit being rational.
You do seem rational in your videos.
Perhaps you've heard of particle/wave duality,
it's a super-classical concept in quantum mechanics.
Then, how about the radical/rational?
That would seem to have nothing to do with a
finite list of atomic facts of general knowledge.
No it wouldn't, just add it as another fact.
The usual account of material implication about
monotonicity and entailment is that "material
implication" is neither material nor implication,
and furthermore doesn't entail entailment and
isn't monotone about monotonicity.
I'll agree that one can count to five on the usual
fingers on a usual hand, then here that besides
that the left hand does know what the right hand
is doing, stop hitting yourself.
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men
and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
On 4/6/2026 1:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
You should turn yourself into the authorities now before you harm anybody?
On 04/06/2026 03:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/6/2026 1:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
You should turn yourself into the authorities now before you harm
anybody?
Hit the wrong nerve?
On 4/6/26 5:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 03:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/6/2026 1:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
You should turn yourself into the authorities now before you harm
anybody?
Hit the wrong nerve?
chris is shallow af retard who can't handle the heat he pathetically
tries to dish out,
ofc u hit a nerve suggesting the status quo boogie men are overblown,
the dud doesn't have critical thinking faculties
On 04/06/2026 08:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/6/26 5:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 03:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/6/2026 1:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
You should turn yourself into the authorities now before you harm
anybody?
Hit the wrong nerve?
chris is shallow af retard who can't handle the heat he pathetically
tries to dish out,
ofc u hit a nerve suggesting the status quo boogie men are overblown,
the dud doesn't have critical thinking faculties
philia-phobes <-> phobia-philes
Since I'm not an axe murderer, I'd rather be generous and
figure that if he didn't show abject fear at the mere
mention of bucking the "child protective services" that
he'd worry that they'd kidnap his offspring. It's easy
to understand the fear and anxiety tied up in the closest
(or, closets) of bonds.
I.e., the people who suffer the most from demonization
of unlikely occurrences are vulnerable themselves,
while of course it's better if children are innocents
and don't need to grow up too soon and have no reason
to think so. Not un-protected, just, not over-protected.
Then, if philia-phobes are those that are driven to
fear normal sorts of situations like being polite and
talking to the neighbors and the sending the children outside
to play, and then phobia-philes are those who get off on
the fears of others, then the world would be better off
with less of both of them. This would be for the
alleviating the unreasonable anxiety of philia-phobes,
which would naturally shrivel up phobia-philes.
The "child-parent-adult" account of psychology is usual.
The phobia-philes, or phoba-philes or phobo-philes,
basically are terrorists by definition.
Then, "regardless", where "regardless" was a term
introduced in pop-psychology for behavior in the '80s,
regardless of where Donald Trump touched the dolly,
the open corruption is obscene.
Here, then, though, the "ad hominem" is not only irrelevant,
it's insulting, since what's under discussion are
matters of logic.
Now, I'm going to remark about the ideas of this
closed-minded "well-founded justification tree",
about what's going on in "synthetic mathematics"
these days, which is contradictions, that even
mechanical reference reasoners are readily provided
that destroy said ignorances of contradictions of
"synthetic mathematics". Or, "PO and similar troll-bots"
aren't doing "synthetic mathematics", since mathematics
is a whole, those are "ignorant inductive impasses".
On 4/7/2026 12:07 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 08:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/6/26 5:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 03:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/6/2026 1:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust"
is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles"
and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people.
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
You should turn yourself into the authorities now before you harm
anybody?
Hit the wrong nerve?
chris is shallow af retard who can't handle the heat he pathetically
tries to dish out,
ofc u hit a nerve suggesting the status quo boogie men are overblown,
the dud doesn't have critical thinking faculties
philia-phobes <-> phobia-philes
Since I'm not an axe murderer, I'd rather be generous and
figure that if he didn't show abject fear at the mere
mention of bucking the "child protective services" that
he'd worry that they'd kidnap his offspring. It's easy
to understand the fear and anxiety tied up in the closest
(or, closets) of bonds.
I.e., the people who suffer the most from demonization
of unlikely occurrences are vulnerable themselves,
while of course it's better if children are innocents
and don't need to grow up too soon and have no reason
to think so. Not un-protected, just, not over-protected.
Then, if philia-phobes are those that are driven to
fear normal sorts of situations like being polite and
talking to the neighbors and the sending the children outside
to play, and then phobia-philes are those who get off on
the fears of others, then the world would be better off
with less of both of them. This would be for the
alleviating the unreasonable anxiety of philia-phobes,
which would naturally shrivel up phobia-philes.
The "child-parent-adult" account of psychology is usual.
The phobia-philes, or phoba-philes or phobo-philes,
basically are terrorists by definition.
Then, "regardless", where "regardless" was a term
introduced in pop-psychology for behavior in the '80s,
regardless of where Donald Trump touched the dolly,
the open corruption is obscene.
Here, then, though, the "ad hominem" is not only irrelevant,
it's insulting, since what's under discussion are
matters of logic.
Now, I'm going to remark about the ideas of this
closed-minded "well-founded justification tree",
about what's going on in "synthetic mathematics"
these days, which is contradictions, that even
mechanical reference reasoners are readily provided
that destroy said ignorances of contradictions of
"synthetic mathematics". Or, "PO and similar troll-bots"
aren't doing "synthetic mathematics", since mathematics
is a whole, those are "ignorant inductive impasses".
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
On 04/07/2026 12:19 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/7/2026 12:07 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 08:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 4/6/26 5:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 03:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/6/2026 1:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:35 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:26 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/06/2026 12:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/5/2026 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
[...]
It's seems that PO has it that given an infinitely
fast and infinitely large computer, that he can
compute some change in cash and most of the steps
of a pizza delivery order.
I suppose congratulation are in order,
that'll make a great pizza delivery driver.
"Pete Olcott: the pizza man."
PO is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.
You know, since the 90's or so and "think of the children",
I blame the Redcoats and Limeys for making "terrorists"
and "pedophiles" the boogey-men and unclean abominations
that taint matters of the violation of liberties with
the excrable pathological psychologism of filth and dirt.
Furthermore, the correct word for child molesters would
be "pederast", since "pedophile" simply means those who
love children, then that the conflation of "love" and "lust" >>>>>>>>> is another dirty, dark algorithm, since besides "cropophiles" >>>>>>>>> and "necrophiles" that most accounts of -philia are the
platonic variety.
So, think of the children, and boogey-man word-wavers can
go directly straight to hell, anybody who abuses the
words "terrorist" or "pedo" can go eat a box of dicks.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, ....
So, the next person who uses the word "terrorist" or
"pedo", tell them those mean just "enemy" and "abuser",
and that they're abusers of words the enemies of good people. >>>>>>>>>
More correct usage would be along the lines of
"Donald Trump is an alleged _pederast_, and his
bombastic belligerence exhibits _terroristic_ tendencies",
or for something like "Fudd Bibi was a genocidal monomaniac."
My dick has a rather limited vocabulary,
and only a modicum of intelligence,
with the theory that the gonads of both
sexes involve their own grey cells besides
hormones. Tt doesn't much know the difference
between a crotch in a tree and a large-mouth bass.
That said, it doesn't much like cringing at
each mention of "sex crimes". It rather
considers "sex crimes" as "sex offenses".
Neither does my rectum, yet it only has one job.
Children: not to be confused with juveniles.
Terrorists get a sort of automatic death penalty.
P.S.: I hate pimps.
You should turn yourself into the authorities now before you harm
anybody?
Hit the wrong nerve?
chris is shallow af retard who can't handle the heat he pathetically
tries to dish out,
ofc u hit a nerve suggesting the status quo boogie men are overblown,
the dud doesn't have critical thinking faculties
philia-phobes <-> phobia-philes
Since I'm not an axe murderer, I'd rather be generous and
figure that if he didn't show abject fear at the mere
mention of bucking the "child protective services" that
he'd worry that they'd kidnap his offspring. It's easy
to understand the fear and anxiety tied up in the closest
(or, closets) of bonds.
I.e., the people who suffer the most from demonization
of unlikely occurrences are vulnerable themselves,
while of course it's better if children are innocents
and don't need to grow up too soon and have no reason
to think so. Not un-protected, just, not over-protected.
Then, if philia-phobes are those that are driven to
fear normal sorts of situations like being polite and
talking to the neighbors and the sending the children outside
to play, and then phobia-philes are those who get off on
the fears of others, then the world would be better off
with less of both of them. This would be for the
alleviating the unreasonable anxiety of philia-phobes,
which would naturally shrivel up phobia-philes.
The "child-parent-adult" account of psychology is usual.
The phobia-philes, or phoba-philes or phobo-philes,
basically are terrorists by definition.
Then, "regardless", where "regardless" was a term
introduced in pop-psychology for behavior in the '80s,
regardless of where Donald Trump touched the dolly,
the open corruption is obscene.
Here, then, though, the "ad hominem" is not only irrelevant,
it's insulting, since what's under discussion are
matters of logic.
Now, I'm going to remark about the ideas of this
closed-minded "well-founded justification tree",
about what's going on in "synthetic mathematics"
these days, which is contradictions, that even
mechanical reference reasoners are readily provided
that destroy said ignorances of contradictions of
"synthetic mathematics". Or, "PO and similar troll-bots"
aren't doing "synthetic mathematics", since mathematics
is a whole, those are "ignorant inductive impasses".
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
No, I'm anti-terrorist.
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
No, I'm anti-terrorist.
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular culture
(of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.
You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you reconsider
all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in
this thread.
Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on topic
in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.
In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular culture
(of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.
You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you reconsider
all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in
this thread.
Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on topic
in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.
On 04/09/2026 05:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]>
wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking >>>> "why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're
talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular culture
(of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in
harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.
You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you reconsider
all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in
this thread.
Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on topic
in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.
"Otherism" as a usual account is sometimes demonizing specters and then threatening sympathy with association, and furthermore threatening the rejection of otherism as association with the demonized, besides the
wider accounts of "otherism" and "we-think" and "in-group" types of
pecking and the like, then furthermore is the association with "thought police" and the like, here vis-a-vis "thought crimes" and "real crimes".
So, besides "un-popular", it's a gross bludgeon.
Let us recall the stories we'd tell youth, or give youth to discover,
the fable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables#Select_fables
Now, plenty of these fables have consequences,
and some invoke a specter like "the boogey-man"
as variously threatens irresponsibility or the unwary,
or, punishes misbehavior, and even, when that
invoking the specter, invokes the specter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
The psycho-sexual in the psycho-logical, is an aspect
of thinking and feeling beings, largely biological.
Anyways children should be more concerned with if anybody
in their class likes them, not whether the world is full
of monsters, after them. (Nor that they'll become one.)
There is not a monster under the bed,
there is not a monster in the closet,
there is not a monster in the basement,
there is not a monster in the yard.
"The only thing to fear is fear itself."
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we
have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -- FDR
There is not a monster in your mind.
Then, basically it's insulting to make "ad hominem" fallacy.
I read a good book a few years ago about identity and including
a chapter on otherism, and how easy it is to see through it,
I'm thinking it was an "Ian B." or so, if I don't recall,
something about "politics of identity" or "psychology of identity"
or along these lines, in the philosophy section though as about
psychology. If I recall it I'll note it here.
Anyways, we still need a word for "loves children".
Thanks for writing.
On 4/9/2026 10:14 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/09/2026 05:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]>
wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be asking >>>>> "why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're
talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular culture >>> (of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in
harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.
You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you reconsider
all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in
this thread.
Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on topic
in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.
"Otherism" as a usual account is sometimes demonizing specters and then
threatening sympathy with association, and furthermore threatening the
rejection of otherism as association with the demonized, besides the
wider accounts of "otherism" and "we-think" and "in-group" types of
pecking and the like, then furthermore is the association with "thought
police" and the like, here vis-a-vis "thought crimes" and "real crimes".
So, besides "un-popular", it's a gross bludgeon.
Let us recall the stories we'd tell youth, or give youth to discover,
the fable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables#Select_fables
Now, plenty of these fables have consequences,
and some invoke a specter like "the boogey-man"
as variously threatens irresponsibility or the unwary,
or, punishes misbehavior, and even, when that
invoking the specter, invokes the specter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
The psycho-sexual in the psycho-logical, is an aspect
of thinking and feeling beings, largely biological.
Anyways children should be more concerned with if anybody
in their class likes them, not whether the world is full
of monsters, after them. (Nor that they'll become one.)
There is not a monster under the bed,
there is not a monster in the closet,
there is not a monster in the basement,
there is not a monster in the yard.
"The only thing to fear is fear itself."
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we
have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror
which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -- FDR
There is not a monster in your mind.
Then, basically it's insulting to make "ad hominem" fallacy.
I read a good book a few years ago about identity and including
a chapter on otherism, and how easy it is to see through it,
I'm thinking it was an "Ian B." or so, if I don't recall,
something about "politics of identity" or "psychology of identity"
or along these lines, in the philosophy section though as about
psychology. If I recall it I'll note it here.
Anyways, we still need a word for "loves children".
Thanks for writing.
A parent loves their children, indeed. Or at least they should? Olcott,
might love them too much? Oh shit, there I go again.
On 04/09/2026 12:55 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/9/2026 10:14 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/09/2026 05:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]>
wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be
asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're >>>> talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular
culture
(of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in
harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.
You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you reconsider >>>> all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in
this thread.
Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on topic >>>> in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.
"Otherism" as a usual account is sometimes demonizing specters and then
threatening sympathy with association, and furthermore threatening the
rejection of otherism as association with the demonized, besides the
wider accounts of "otherism" and "we-think" and "in-group" types of
pecking and the like, then furthermore is the association with "thought
police" and the like, here vis-a-vis "thought crimes" and "real crimes". >>> So, besides "un-popular", it's a gross bludgeon.
Let us recall the stories we'd tell youth, or give youth to discover,
the fable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables#Select_fables
Now, plenty of these fables have consequences,
and some invoke a specter like "the boogey-man"
as variously threatens irresponsibility or the unwary,
or, punishes misbehavior, and even, when that
invoking the specter, invokes the specter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
The psycho-sexual in the psycho-logical, is an aspect
of thinking and feeling beings, largely biological.
Anyways children should be more concerned with if anybody
in their class likes them, not whether the world is full
of monsters, after them. (Nor that they'll become one.)
There is not a monster under the bed,
there is not a monster in the closet,
there is not a monster in the basement,
there is not a monster in the yard.
"The only thing to fear is fear itself."
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we
have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror >>> which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -- FDR
There is not a monster in your mind.
Then, basically it's insulting to make "ad hominem" fallacy.
I read a good book a few years ago about identity and including
a chapter on otherism, and how easy it is to see through it,
I'm thinking it was an "Ian B." or so, if I don't recall,
something about "politics of identity" or "psychology of identity"
or along these lines, in the philosophy section though as about
psychology. If I recall it I'll note it here.
Anyways, we still need a word for "loves children".
Thanks for writing.
A parent loves their children, indeed. Or at least they should? Olcott,
might love them too much? Oh shit, there I go again.
Try minding your own business and the old "innocent until proven
guilty", and not be sham "operant-conditioning" that is still
back on pigeons and dogs.
If your actual interests are "protecting the children", and everybody
else, from dangers real or imagined, how about investigating "ad-tech"
for billions of counts and counting of "luring", "corruption of a
minor", "child endangerment", and not even getting into slander and
libel, "identity theft", "computer crimes", and so on. The "ad-tech"
is not "social media", it's got no "safe harbor", and having
algorithm'ed itself it's poisoned itself and pierced its own veil.
Then, about what used to be "special services", these days with
the "surveillance tech" making it more like "secret stasis",
then that's also for busting surveillance tech. That and
busting all the "seals" covering all kinds of "mistakes".
Yes, let's protect the children by busting ad-tech and surveillance
tech. For example, they're liable for anything they know.
Sometimes: ignorance _is_ a defense.
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how to > protect him from that during his childhood 😕
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how to
protect him from that during his childhood 😕
Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
On 4/9/26 5:43 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/09/2026 12:55 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/9/2026 10:14 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 04/09/2026 05:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
[ .... ]
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be >>>>>>> asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".
Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?
I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're >>>>> talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular
culture
(of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in >>>>> harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.
You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you
reconsider
all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in >>>>> this thread.
Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on
topic
in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.
"Otherism" as a usual account is sometimes demonizing specters and then >>>> threatening sympathy with association, and furthermore threatening the >>>> rejection of otherism as association with the demonized, besides the
wider accounts of "otherism" and "we-think" and "in-group" types of
pecking and the like, then furthermore is the association with "thought >>>> police" and the like, here vis-a-vis "thought crimes" and "real
crimes".
So, besides "un-popular", it's a gross bludgeon.
Let us recall the stories we'd tell youth, or give youth to discover,
the fable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables#Select_fables
Now, plenty of these fables have consequences,
and some invoke a specter like "the boogey-man"
as variously threatens irresponsibility or the unwary,
or, punishes misbehavior, and even, when that
invoking the specter, invokes the specter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
The psycho-sexual in the psycho-logical, is an aspect
of thinking and feeling beings, largely biological.
Anyways children should be more concerned with if anybody
in their class likes them, not whether the world is full
of monsters, after them. (Nor that they'll become one.)
There is not a monster under the bed,
there is not a monster in the closet,
there is not a monster in the basement,
there is not a monster in the yard.
"The only thing to fear is fear itself."
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we >>>> have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror >>>> which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -- FDR >>>>
There is not a monster in your mind.
Then, basically it's insulting to make "ad hominem" fallacy.
I read a good book a few years ago about identity and including
a chapter on otherism, and how easy it is to see through it,
I'm thinking it was an "Ian B." or so, if I don't recall,
something about "politics of identity" or "psychology of identity"
or along these lines, in the philosophy section though as about
psychology. If I recall it I'll note it here.
Anyways, we still need a word for "loves children".
Thanks for writing.
A parent loves their children, indeed. Or at least they should? Olcott,
might love them too much? Oh shit, there I go again.
Try minding your own business and the old "innocent until proven
guilty", and not be sham "operant-conditioning" that is still
back on pigeons and dogs.
If your actual interests are "protecting the children", and everybody
else, from dangers real or imagined, how about investigating "ad-tech"
for billions of counts and counting of "luring", "corruption of a
minor", "child endangerment", and not even getting into slander and
libel, "identity theft", "computer crimes", and so on. The "ad-tech"
is not "social media", it's got no "safe harbor", and having
algorithm'ed itself it's poisoned itself and pierced its own veil.
Then, about what used to be "special services", these days with
the "surveillance tech" making it more like "secret stasis",
then that's also for busting surveillance tech. That and
busting all the "seals" covering all kinds of "mistakes".
Yes, let's protect the children by busting ad-tech and surveillance
tech. For example, they're liable for anything they know.
Sometimes: ignorance _is_ a defense.
idk if u've used the rest of the internet in the last decade or so,
but pedos are basically the ultimately boogieman that somehow sit below literal serial killers and mass murders on the social media hierarchy,
usenet (which i only joined last year) is the only place i've ever seen
any amount of nuance applied to subject, probably because censorship
doesn't really exist here, and therefore the discussion cannot be shaped
by the fear of people in charge
imo this is likely a reflection of an incredibly amount of systemic
sexual trauma we've received by how modern society represses sexuality during childhood, which i think is an appendage of how religion used to repress it, that somehow snuck it's way into secular society...
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how to protect him from that during his childhood 😕
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how to
protect him from that during his childhood 😕
Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
On 4/10/2026 4:24 PM, Dude wrote:
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
;Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how
to > protect him from that during his childhood 😕
;
Scary. He has to be able to use the internet, but its the wild west
filled with predators. Sigh.
On 4/11/2026 2:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/10/2026 4:24 PM, Dude wrote:
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
;Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how
to > protect him from that during his childhood 😕
;
Scary. He has to be able to use the internet, but its the wild west
filled with predators. Sigh.
Case in point: Olcott. Afaict, he never denied why he got arrested... Claimed to be god or some crazy shit like that.
On 4/11/2026 4:12 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/11/2026 2:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/10/2026 4:24 PM, Dude wrote:
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
;Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how >>>>> to > protect him from that during his childhood 😕
;
Scary. He has to be able to use the internet, but its the wild west
filled with predators. Sigh.
Case in point: Olcott. Afaict, he never denied why he got arrested...
Claimed to be god or some crazy shit like that.
Case dismissed official record expunged for more than a decade.
On 4/11/26 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:Or that there was never any case in the first place. We'll never know.
On 4/11/2026 4:12 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:Which just means you persuaded someone that the case wasn't worth persuing.
On 4/11/2026 2:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:Case dismissed official record expunged for more than a decade.
On 4/10/2026 4:24 PM, Dude wrote:Case in point: Olcott. Afaict, he never denied why he got arrested...
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:Scary. He has to be able to use the internet, but its the wild west
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how >>>>> to > protect him from that during his childhood 😕Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
filled with predators. Sigh.
Claimed to be god or some crazy shit like that.
Case dismissed is NOT evidence of actual innocence. Maybe you shouldWe have a tradition in civilised societies of the assumption of innocence
look at the actual meaning of the words.
It is still a FACT that you have been reported (and haven't even triedIt is anything but a fact (or FACT). It is a vague allegation from long
to deny it) that you said it was ok to have the child porn "because you
were God".
That shows your level of mentality, and morality.Your post shows something about yours. The topic is entirely off-topic
Richard Damon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/11/26 5:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/11/2026 4:12 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/11/2026 2:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 4/10/2026 4:24 PM, Dude wrote:
On 4/9/2026 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?
my wife just gave birth to a boy 6 hours ago, and i'm unsure of how >>>>>>> to > protect him from that during his childhood 😕
Don't ever let him onto the internet. It's addictive. Case in point.
Scary. He has to be able to use the internet, but its the wild west
filled with predators. Sigh.
Case in point: Olcott. Afaict, he never denied why he got arrested...
Claimed to be god or some crazy shit like that.
Case dismissed official record expunged for more than a decade.
Which just means you persuaded someone that the case wasn't worth persuing.
Or that there was never any case in the first place. We'll never know.
Case dismissed is NOT evidence of actual innocence. Maybe you should
look at the actual meaning of the words.
We have a tradition in civilised societies of the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
It is still a FACT that you have been reported (and haven't even tried
to deny it) that you said it was ok to have the child porn "because you
were God".
It is anything but a fact (or FACT). It is a vague allegation from long
ago.
That shows your level of mentality, and morality.
Your post shows something about yours. The topic is entirely off-topic
for this newsgroup. That you choose to harrass another poster with vague allegations of a criminal past irrelevant to the group does not reflect
well on you.
Please cease this harrassment, everybody.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,114 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 492511:59:14 |
| Calls: | 14,267 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,320 |
| D/L today: |
26,263 files (8,510M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,518,394 |