On 9/5/25 12:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 20:24:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/3/25 12:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 22:34:03 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/2/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 07:22:59 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 2:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a >>>>>>> specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out >>>>>>> with their conclusionL
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically limited >>>>>>>>> its usage to a non-standard usage when it did so.
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible spectrum of light waves, then black and white are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcasts and don’t count as true, physical colors." -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting decision a halt decider, given a *description* of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its caller as in input, reports to its caller because its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caller will proceed to do the exact opposite causing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical contradiction.But only if you define physical color as spectral colors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a quaint misuse of the word.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject it based on logical misunderstandings, especially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his conflation of execution with simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specturm (which is what they seem to be talking about). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "physical color" means in normal conversation.
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Orange"
as when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or truth) >>>>>>>>> works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways >>>>>>> in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and >>>>>>> white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is >>>>>>> show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view >>>>>>> that you can just redefine words to say what you want.
This is shown also in some of the other articles on that page, which >>>>>>> use the later version of the definition of color.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a
specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out
with their conclusionL
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in >>>>> which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and
white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is >>>>> show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view that >>>>> you can just redefine words to say what you want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid you
can't understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't care if you >>>>> are wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a
specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out with >>> their conclusionL
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in
which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and white, >>> as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is
show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view that
you can just redefine words to say what you want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid you can't
understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't care if you are
wrong.
I do wonder at what point your NSP will notice that you BI has correst
the spammer threshold and takes action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
In other words, you are just admitting that you are just a stupid
liar,that can't actually read by, just like the AI you like to use,
rotely parrot words you have read.
Since that area you want to quote is prefix by a non-normal condition,
and they then point out:
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in
which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Which *IS* an indication of normal usage as something different.
So, all you are telling the world is that we should all just ignore what
you have said, and thus any of the ideas you might have pointed out in
the past are apt to also be infected by this same stupidity.
On 9/5/2025 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/5/25 12:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 20:24:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/3/25 12:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 22:34:03 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/2/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 07:22:59 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/1/25 2:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a >>>>>>>> specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out >>>>>>>> with their conclusionL
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically >>>>>>>>>> limited
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott.
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting decision a halt decider, given a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *description* ofBut only if you define physical color as spectral colors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a quaint misuse of the word.
its caller as in input, reports to its caller because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
caller will proceed to do the exact opposite causing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical contradiction.
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject it based on logical misunderstandings, especially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his conflation of execution with simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observational phenomenon over the full visible spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible spectrum of light waves, then black and white are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcasts and don’t count as true, physical colors." -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual condition, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specturm (which is what they seem to be talking about). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "physical color" means in normal conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Orange"
as when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>> I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
its usage to a non-standard usage when it did so.
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or truth) >>>>>>>>>> works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways >>>>>>>> in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black >>>>>>>> and
white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are
doing is
show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view >>>>>>>> that you can just redefine words to say what you want.
This is shown also in some of the other articles on that page, >>>>>>>> which
use the later version of the definition of color.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a
specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out >>>>>> with their conclusionL
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the
ways in
which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and
white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is >>>>>> show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view >>>>>> that
you can just redefine words to say what you want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid you
can't understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't care if you >>>>>> are wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a
specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point out
with
their conclusionL
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in >>>> which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and
white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing is
show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is view that >>>> you can just redefine words to say what you want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid you can't >>>> understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't care if you are
wrong.
I do wonder at what point your NSP will notice that you BI has correst >>>> the spammer threshold and takes action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
In other words, you are just admitting that you are just a stupid
liar,that can't actually read by, just like the AI you like to use,
rotely parrot words you have read.
Since that area you want to quote is prefix by a non-normal condition,
and they then point out:
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways in
which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and
white, as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Which *IS* an indication of normal usage as something different.
So, all you are telling the world is that we should all just ignore
what you have said, and thus any of the ideas you might have pointed
out in the past are apt to also be infected by this same stupidity.
It would be funny for a "Disney flower" that is pink, it says well, what color am I really? Pink is not a color, some say... ;^D
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 14:32:54 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/5/25 11:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 11:09:00 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are teh lying c-nt, as your source, when read in context,
On 9/5/25 10:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 10:35:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:So, you do just admit to being that stupid, and are just ramping up
On 9/5/25 12:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 20:24:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you are just admitting that you are just a stupid
On 9/3/25 12:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 22:34:03 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a >>>>>>>> specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point >>>>>>>> out with their conclusionL
On 9/2/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 07:22:59 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a >>>>>>>>>> specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point >>>>>>>>>> out with their conclusionL
On 9/1/25 2:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in >>>>>>>>>>>> a specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they >>>>>>>>>>>> point out with their conclusionL
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited its usage to a non-standard usage when it did so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:SO you are Peter Olcotting again.
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Right.
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what halting decision a halt decider, given a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *description* of its caller as in input, reports to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its caller because its caller will proceed to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact opposite causing a logical contradiction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reject it based on logical misunderstandings, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially his conflation of execution with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.But only if you define physical color as spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors, as a quaint misuse of the word. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observational phenomenon over the full visible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum,
it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in Olcottian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible spectrum of light waves, then black and white >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are outcasts and don’t count as true, physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors."
--
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition,
as were rarely are talking about, as just the rainbow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specturm (which is what they seem to be talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what "physical color" means in normal conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Orange"
as when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only produces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 very specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that article is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
/Flibble
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth)
works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, >>>>>>>>>>>> then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are >>>>>>>>>>>> doing is show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and >>>>>>>>>>>> share is view that you can just redefine words to say what you >>>>>>>>>>>> want.
This is shown also in some of the other articles on that page, >>>>>>>>>>>> which use the later version of the definition of color. >>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then >>>>>>>>>> black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are >>>>>>>>>> doing is show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and >>>>>>>>>> share is view that you can just redefine words to say what you >>>>>>>>>> want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid >>>>>>>>>> you can't understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't >>>>>>>>>> care if you are wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then >>>>>>>> black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are doing >>>>>>>> is show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and share is >>>>>>>> view that you can just redefine words to say what you want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid you >>>>>>>> can't understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't care if >>>>>>>> you are wrong.
I do wonder at what point your NSP will notice that you BI has >>>>>>>> correst the spammer threshold and takes action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
liar,that can't actually read by, just like the AI you like to use, >>>>>> rotely parrot words you have read.
Since that area you want to quote is prefix by a non-normal
condition,
and they then point out:
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways >>>>>> in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and >>>>>> white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Which *IS* an indication of normal usage as something different.
So, all you are telling the world is that we should all just ignore >>>>>> what you have said, and thus any of the ideas you might have pointed >>>>>> out in the past are apt to also be infected by this same stupidity. >>>>>
/Flibble
your BI to the point that your NSP might have cause to ban you from
posting.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
doesn't say what you want it to, but points out that a minority position
uses the word that way, that needs pointing out that it is a minority
position.
Your failure to do so, and insistance that it is the normal meaning just
proves that you are just as stupid as your idol Peter Olcott, and just
as much of a pathological liar.
We will see when your NSP decides that you have crossed the BI threshold
far enough to be just banned from posting.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 9/5/25 2:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:white-
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 14:32:54 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/5/25 11:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 11:09:00 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/5/25 10:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2025 10:35:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/5/25 12:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 20:24:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/3/25 12:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 22:34:03 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 9/2/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 07:22:59 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 9/1/25 2:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:12:29 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 9/1/25 2:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 14:03:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 9/1/25 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 13:29:44 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 9/1/25 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 22:16:24 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/31/25 9:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 20:30:51 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/31/25 8:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the diagonalization proofs it doesn't matter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what halting decision a halt decider, given a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *description* of its caller as in input, reports >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its caller because its caller will proceed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the exact opposite causing a logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction.
But only if you define physical color as spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors, as a quaint misuse of the word. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Olcott is too stubborn to understand this; he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to reject it based on logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstandings, especially his conflation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution with simulation.
Pink isn't a physical colour.
/Flibble
By the NORMAL meaning of Physical Color, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an observational phenomenon over the full visible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum,
it is one.
Mr Flibble is just showing he believes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcottian logic.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the visible spectrum of light waves, then black and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> white are outcasts and don’t count as true, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical colors."
--
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-
Which just shows that you can't read, or won't read (which is perhapsNo, you are teh lying c-nt, as your source, when read in context,So, you do just admit to being that stupid, and are just ramping upIn other words, you are just admitting that you are just a stupid >>>>>>> liar,that can't actually read by, just like the AI you like toActually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in a >>>>>>>>> specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they point >>>>>>>>> out with their conclusionLActually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, in >>>>>>>>>>> a specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as they >>>>>>>>>>> point out with their conclusionLMy source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.Actually, they don't, they say that OTHERS use it that way, >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a specialized condition, and they disagree with it, as >>>>>>>>>>>>> they point out with their conclusionLMy source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.Which is just Peter Olcotting, as your soucce specifically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited its usage to a non-standard usage when it did so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.So, you admit to just being a second Peter Olcott. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO you are Peter Olcotting again.colorsRight.
/Flibble
*IF*, a conditional, and is specifing an unusual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition,
as were rarely are talking about, as just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rainbow specturm (which is what they seem to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about).
Sincd that is NOT the normal case, it doesn't define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what "physical color" means in normal conversation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, by that definition, your monitor doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce "Orange"
as when it does, it isn't the orange that comes out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that definition.
In fact, by that definition, you monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces 3 very specific colors.
Sorry, your problem is that you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what that article is talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
/Flibble
You are just showing you don't understand how words (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth)
works.
Thus, you are just a second coming of Peter Olcott. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing is show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> share is view that you can just redefine words to say what >>>>>>>>>>>>> you want.
This is shown also in some of the other articles on that >>>>>>>>>>>>> page,
which use the later version of the definition of color. >>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, >>>>>>>>>>> then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are >>>>>>>>>>> doing is show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and >>>>>>>>>>> share is view that you can just redefine words to say what you >>>>>>>>>>> want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid >>>>>>>>>>> you can't understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't >>>>>>>>>>> care if you are wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then >>>>>>>>> black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Since that *IS* the normal definition of color, all you are
doing is show=ing that you are disciple of Peter Olcott, and >>>>>>>>> share is view that you can just redefine words to say what you >>>>>>>>> want.
Your failure to read and respond just shows you are so stupid >>>>>>>>> you can't understand what people say, or so stupid, you don't >>>>>>>>> care if you are wrong.
I do wonder at what point your NSP will notice that you BI has >>>>>>>>> correst the spammer threshold and takes action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
use, rotely parrot words you have read.
Since that area you want to quote is prefix by a non-normal
condition,
and they then point out:
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the
ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then
black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Which *IS* an indication of normal usage as something different. >>>>>>>
So, all you are telling the world is that we should all just
ignore what you have said, and thus any of the ideas you might
have pointed out in the past are apt to also be infected by this >>>>>>> same stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
your BI to the point that your NSP might have cause to ban you from
posting.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
doesn't say what you want it to, but points out that a minority
position uses the word that way, that needs pointing out that it is a
minority position.
Your failure to do so, and insistance that it is the normal meaning
just proves that you are just as stupid as your idol Peter Olcott, and
just as much of a pathological liar.
We will see when your NSP decides that you have crossed the BI
threshold far enough to be just banned from posting.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
worse) and are perhaps, if you have setup the auto-responder, now guilty
of abuse of the internet, and liable to being disiplined by your
proovide.
The problem with your argument is that your source does NOT imply that
this is the correct usage, but is quoting what "others" say, when
talking in a non-standard usage,
Thus, you are showing that it is YOU that is the lying c-nt who just
can't think.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,069 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 81:24:59 |
| Calls: | 13,728 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,961 |
| D/L today: |
5,672 files (1,490M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,416,571 |