Re: Godel Goofed? Nope.

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:

> olcott wrote:
>
> > Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
> >
> > > olcott wrote:
> > >
> > > > A Christian minister defending an atheist Liar,
> > >
> > > 1. I don't know that QC is an atheist, and I wouldn't take your word for it....
> > > 2. Even if he is an atheist, that doesn't mean that he always lies (or that Christians, even
> > > ministers, always tell the truth.)
> > > 3. I haven't seen any lies by QC in his posts
> >
> > I have specifically quoted his lie in the last few
> > posts in this same sequence, the same sequence
> > that you have been responding to.
>
> You have made your allegation. You haven't made your case. Just because you have convinced yourself
> about something doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean that others are convinced by your
> assertions.
>

Find any possible quote of mine, anything that I ever
said that could be taken to mean that I don't like
recursion. I have written several compilers, and without
the BNF form of recursion this would have been
far too difficult... It is a verifiable and object fact
that I NEVER said anything like the twisted
misstatements that QC has attributed to me...
The statements that I did make, that referred
to recursion, I did indeed reiterate so many times,
that even a slow witted person with little education
would have a difficult time misconstruing...

>
> > I said that
> > the INFINITELY RECURSIVE nature of
> > both Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and
> > the Liar Paradox, invalidates that they are
> > statements. Here is the LIAR'S restatement
> > of this...
> >
> > >>>You forget.  You don't like recursive specifications.  :D
> > That invalidates everything!  <<<
> >
> > My statement is not at all like his restatement of what
> > I said. Since I made my word-for-word statement
> > several times (about six), there is no way that his
> > fraudulent misstatement is unintentional...  This could
> > be characterized as the Straw man Fallacy, except
> > that did not misunderstand what I said, he intentionally
> > misrepresented what I said.... Since you have been
> > specifically commenting on this sequence,
>
> There is where, by your definition, YOU lie. I wasn't commenting on ANY sequence other than your ad
> hominem attack. You could have said, "You have misrepresented by position," or "you have

By even calling it an Ad Hominem attack you support
the Liar in his Lies... It is not Ad Hominem to call one
who lies a Liar, it is a tautology... You NEVER ONCE
called QC on his endless tirade of Ad Hominem attacks
on me, thus showing that you are biased toward the Liar
in his Lies...

>
> misunderstood my position," but you didn't. You called him a liar. That is ad hominem, and once you
> were caught, you had to attack me personally for pointing it out. Like a child trying to hide the
> fact that his hand is in the cookie jar. Why don't you grow up. Your rantings are very old, and
> very tiring.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > > Yes, I do. However, since you have claimed that statements of Christ, as recorded in
> > > scripture were the words of the evil one, that means that you are a son of the father of
> > > lies. Or, in words from playground, "Takes one to know one."
> > >
> >
> > No, I did not calim that this IS true, I claimed that
> > it might possibly be true. As I recall you correctly
> > corrected me on these errors of mine. You described
> > the context of these statements, and this described
> > context changed my view.
>
> Strange, you haven't admitted prior to this that you were in error, in fact, as I recall, you
> defended your ridiculous position, and attacked me again. You seem to think that putting people
> down makes your arguments stronger. It doesn't.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I myself would certainly not place myself on
> > > > the side of the goats... (There could be
> > > > consequences to this alignment)...
> > >
> >
> > What I am saying here is that to intentionally place
> > yourself in the position of supporting a LIAR in
> > his LIES, might get you on the wrong side at judgment day...
> > You might (for this reason) be on the side of al those
> > condemned...
>
> I know what you were saying. But it was so patiently silly that I replied with a joke. Seems you
> missed it. Why am I not surprised by that?
>
> As for judgment day, well, short answer is I'm confident on the outcome on that day, because I'm
> not confident in my own goodness. Not that I expect you will understand what I'm referring to.
>

Humility is a good starting point, yet, one should not
use this as an excuse to quit any further attempts at
progress towards righteousness. Saved by grace is
no excuse to continue being mean and nasty...

>
> Roy