On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:54:25 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 1:35:36 PM UTC-4, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
...
> > Hans Bezemer
...
> I'm starting to think this guy has neurological issues that cause him to behave this way. He seems technically capable, but not able to express his ideas in a coherent manner. Then he also engages in pointless debate and doesn't understand when people point out he is free to ignore the pointless comments he is responding to.

So, your arguments and comments are pointless, you finally admit it! That's big of you. And of course, you are free to stop those pointless disruptive comments at any time, and go Amy hassle somebody else.

I imagine Hugh might like to see this.

> Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)
Richard Collins Arius.

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 5:22:46 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> So, your arguments and comments are pointless, you finally admit it! That's big of you. And of course, you are free to stop those pointless disruptive comments at any time, and go Amy hassle somebody else.

Maybe he's just compulsive about making the last post?

--

Rick C. (Lorem Ipsum)

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:35:36 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 5:50:30 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:43:11 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Another logic breakdown.
> I don't think so. Not before you analyze the hell out of my ramblings, use the proper jargon
> (yes, logic has its own perfectly defined concepts) and apply the proper rules. As a matter
> of fact, if I apply the rules of "Graham triangle of disagreement", you don't rise out of the
> most primitive levels mentioned there.

You are just moralizing about using rules, not realising.

Ever hear the term bringing a k... to a g.. fight?

That's bad english though.

>
> > Morally preaching defense of bad immoral behavior. Small fry equating questioning a
> > routine as the same as trying to systematically undermine and take down entire projects.
> As I said - I'm not much of a moralist. I'm just pointing out the futility of your ramblings.
The above proves differently.

> And where have I "systematically undermine and take down entire projects"?

Again you are not reading and deducing properly, plus the inflexible thinking. Nobody said or play that you do such.
> If I criticize I always point out what is lacking there. I never come along without a valid
> argument (yes, I keep an eye on "Graham triangle of disagreement"). I've often even offered
> help for those things I find lacking.

Mirror! You don't!

> BTW, if someone has to complain about "systematically undermine and take down a project"
> it should be me. 4tH was called an "abomination" by some when it came out - and was
> systematically boycotted by some sites for quite some time.

Why? It's hardly of much interestsl, and that woo woo! Music you have on your videos is
disturbing! Forth OS was an example of a really significant project.

>
> You know what? I couldn't care less. I was having so much fun scratching that itch, that I
> could never be persuaded to give it up. No matter who thought what. When I've made up
> my mind, I simply ignore what people think. It's irrelevant in my teleology.

Ignore logic?

> > Where's your big movement you are doing?
> Read my lips: I - DON'T - CARE. You could all be programming in Java, I'd STILL be doing my
> thing. Even if any of my projects were really taking off, I wasn't planning for that. It took me
> three years before I put out any code. Basically because I got tired of mailing copies.

Three years of people going around accusing you of doing nothing, when you were the only
one doing something. I hear you.

> > You do realise, many of these little projects I'm looking at, can bring them thousand or more
> > new members here?! He would be out numbered.
> Again - do your thing. I don't care. I'm not doing this because I expect a place in heaven or
> generations honoring my achievements. I do what I do because I like doing it.

You know what that sounds like? What about growing and benefiting the community,
Instead of coming into other people's threads and: me me me!

I come across people with a bent because against what they can not do themselves.

> But be my guest - prove your point..
I just did!

> Words are cheap.
Your words were!

> > You know forth is so dieing, you can type misc forth etc into YouTube, and hardly get any
> > relevant result.
> After all this - do you really expect an answer from me?

Inflexible and getting it wrong, who cares?

>
> Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:56:34 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 5:22:46 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > So, your arguments and comments are pointless, you finally admit it! That's big of you. And of course, you are free to stop those pointless disruptive comments at any time, and go Amy hassle somebody else.
> Maybe he's just compulsive about making the last post?

Yes, you seem to be. Say something valid!

On 12/09/2022 1:50 am, Wayne morellini wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:43:11 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Another logic breakdown.
>
> Morally preaching defence of bad immoral behaviour. Small fry equating questioning a routine as the same as trying to systematically undermine and take down entire projects.
>
> Where's your big movement you are doing?
>
> You do realise, many of these little projects I'm looking at, can bring them thousand or more
> new members here?! He would be out numbered.
>
> You know forth is so dieing, you can type misc forth etc into YouTube, and hardly get any
> relevant result. That's a top interest forth technology. It just doesn't have the mind space. One video was something like: three
> dieing languages you should not learn. Everybody managing their little island has mismanaged
> forth.
>
>
> Now, he's got you doing his work for him..

That's rather biblical. 'I can bring Forth a thousand and more new members if only it will
bow down and worship me.'

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:04:50 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:

> > Now, he's got you doing his work for him..
> That's rather biblical. 'I can bring Forth a thousand and more new members if only it will
> bow down and worship me.'

You are a very sick individual, you want forth to bow down and worship you, I'm just content with
getting new people involved to revive the community. Forth is not really that overwhelming,
It's really the minimum reverse polish stack notation processing that's interesting, you can put
whatever compatable computer programming language on that that you like, it does not have to
be Forth. But Forth is the best tool at the moment to get a movement of optimised stuff done
on that sort of processor, and there is a simplified x86 compatible Forth that allows source
code sharing with PC's, colorforth. It allows a virtual code to be made that can transfer to
machine code in both environments. Simple, cheap effective.

Remember, realistic delusions of work that can be done, before your delusions of grandeur.
That's how business people have often done it. My father did outstanding work, not because
he was there, but because he could get there. Critic's here don't seem to be able to do any
outstanding work, at all, because they can't seem to figure out how to design it. They seem
to completely miss this first step, not being able to do it, to set up the quality of work going
forwards, and by quality design. Sure they might have done this or that, but I would be
shocked if there were not a lot of people who did this stuff a lot better and made a lot more
success (does making anything at home necessarily prove you know everything about
making even that type of thing, no!). I've never met a truely successful person who thinks like
these people, even the mad ones I know (and the guys they taunt around here are more like that, the sort of people who could do these things way better than themselves. Which just really pathologically irritates them. As they can't achieve much but come here to tear at people. ). Guess what the best guys are like?

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:56:40 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > I don't think so. Not before you analyze the hell out of my ramblings, use the proper jargon
> > (yes, logic has its own perfectly defined concepts) and apply the proper rules. As a matter
> > of fact, if I apply the rules of "Graham triangle of disagreement", you don't rise out of the
> > most primitive levels mentioned there.
> You are just moralizing about using rules, not realising.
No. Just applying standards, that's all. You may want to start a discussion about the validity
and consistency of "Grahams triangle of disagreement" if you wish, but it's just a refelction
of generally accepted debate rules. So good luck with that. Morality has nothing to do with it.
It's just about the strength of your argument
> Ever hear the term bringing a k... to a g.. fight?
Yes. Nothing cuts like the rules of logic.
> That's bad english though.
I haven't mentioned your constant flow of spelling errors for a reason. My excuse is that
I'm not a native speaker. What's yours?
> > > Morally preaching defense of bad immoral behavior. Small fry equating questioning a
> > > routine as the same as trying to systematically undermine and take down entire projects.
> > As I said - I'm not much of a moralist. I'm just pointing out the futility of your ramblings.
> The above proves differently.
No it doesn't. And if you were a really good debater, you would have put forward some
compelling arguments for that. They're lacking and dearly missed.

> Mirror! You don't!
I actually did.

> > You know what? I couldn't care less. I was having so much fun scratching that itch, that I
> > could never be persuaded to give it up. No matter who thought what. When I've made up
> > my mind, I simply ignore what people think. It's irrelevant in my teleology.
> Ignore logic?
If people like you were expressing themselves logically, possibly I would. Not since you don't,
I don't either.

> > > Where's your big movement you are doing?
> > Read my lips: I - DON'T - CARE. You could all be programming in Java, I'd STILL be doing my
> > thing. Even if any of my projects were really taking off, I wasn't planning for that. It took me
> > three years before I put out any code. Basically because I got tired of mailing copies.
> Three years of people going around accusing you of doing nothing, when you were the only
> one doing something. I hear you.
I wasn't saying that. Nobody was accusing anybody of anything. I was just doing my thing,
doing an occasional post and to my surprise people wanted a part from that. Learn how
to dissect text. It might be useful to you in every day life.

> > > You do realise, many of these little projects I'm looking at, can bring them thousand or more
> > > new members here?! He would be out numbered.
> > Again - do your thing. I don't care. I'm not doing this because I expect a place in heaven or
> > generations honoring my achievements. I do what I do because I like doing it.
> You know what that sounds like? What about growing and benefiting the community,
> Instead of coming into other people's threads and: me me me!
I don't care how it sounds like! LOL! ;-) I don't have any lofty goals - but everybody may have
and use anything I produce. That's a centuries old, solid scientific principle. I allows for people
to build upon that, just like I'm building on the knowledge of others.

> I come across people with a bent because against what they can not do themselves.
Good for you. I meet lots of different people. Some have ideas I admire, other haven't had an
original thought in their lives.
> > But be my guest - prove your point..
> I just did!
You didn't. Where is you "community of thousands"?

> > Words are cheap.
> Your words were!
If words are cheap, every bodies words are cheap. That's a tautology. It bears some
connections with deduction and set theory.

> > After all this - do you really expect an answer from me?
> Inflexible and getting it wrong, who cares?
Inflexible and proud of it. Getting it wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Or after applying
generally accepted scientific standards and principles.

Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:49:38 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> I'm just content with
> getting new people involved to revive the community.
I can imagine. But where are they?

> Forth is not really that overwhelming.
It wasn't intended to be. Quite the opposite.

> But Forth is the best tool at the moment to get a movement of optimised stuff done
> on that sort of processor.
Which sort of processor? Specify. Because now (since there is no processor to compare
it is) your entire argument becomes gibberish.

> and there is a simplified x86 compatible Forth that allows source
> code sharing with PC's, colorforth. It allows a virtual code to be made that can transfer to
> machine code in both environments. Simple, cheap effective.
Source sharing is something that can be done with MOST portable Forths. Nothing special
there. Some images may be portable across platforms. I know 4tH's images are (although
it depends on wordsize and character standard). I've run 4tH images across ARM, Mipsel and Intel;
MS-DOS, Windows, OS/X, Android, Coherent and Linux. So that's not something special.

> My father did outstanding work, not because he was there, but because he could get there.
I don't intend to say bad things about your father, but in my world there are only two kinds of
people: those who do and those who don't. Trying doesn't count.

> Critic's here don't seem to be able to do any outstanding work, at all, because they can't
> seem to figure out how to design it.
By whose standards? Yours? Your not even capable of expressing these "standards" in an
intelligible form! Let alone usable.

> I've never met a truely successful person who thinks like
"Truly" is written without an "e".

Hans Bezemer

On 12/09/2022 7:04 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:49:38 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
>> I'm just content with
>> getting new people involved to revive the community.
>
> I can imagine. But where are they?

Over the hill just waiting for the signal to come.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:50:45 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:56:40 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > I don't think so. Not before you analyze the hell out of my ramblings, use the proper jargon
> > > (yes, logic has its own perfectly defined concepts) and apply the proper rules. As a matter
> > > of fact, if I apply the rules of "Graham triangle of disagreement", you don't rise out of the
> > > most primitive levels mentioned there.
> > You are just moralizing about using rules, not realising.
> No. Just applying standards, that's all. You may want to start a discussion about the validity
> and consistency of "Grahams triangle of disagreement" if you wish, but it's just a refelction
> of generally accepted debate rules. So good luck with that. Morality has nothing to do with it.
> It's just about the strength of your argument

Unreal, you can't see the contradictions in that logic!

> > Ever hear the term bringing a k... to a g.. fight?
> Yes. Nothing cuts like the rules of logic.

But you can't see the logic?

> > That's bad english though.
> I haven't mentioned your constant flow of spelling errors for a reason. My excuse is that
> I'm not a native speaker. What's yours?

A sick man with brain damage and typos, getting picked on by a non-native speaker about grammar, but has trouble understanding it himself. Obviously not really considering the term "the living language" affecting the death of previous language, also.

Ramblings deleted.

Your problem is you debate very simply, despite what you claim, not understanding deeper contexts and relationships which price you wrong. This is a common delusion along technics
which higher thinkers look down upon. It's child like!

> If people like you were expressing themselves logically, possibly I would. Not since you don't,

> I don't either.

But I did.

> > > > Where's your big movement you are doing?
> > > Read my lips: I - DON'T - CARE. ...

..
> > You know what that sounds like? What about growing and benefiting the community,
> > Instead of coming into other people's threads and: me me me!
> I don't care how it sounds like! LOL!...
...
> > I come across people with a bent because against what they can not do themselves.
> Good for you. I meet lots of different people. Some have ideas I admire, other haven't had an
> original thought in their lives.

Yes.

> > > But be my guest - prove your point..
> > I just did!
...
> > > Words are cheap.
> > Your words were!
> If words are cheap, every bodies words are cheap. That's a tautology. It bears some
> connections with deduction and set theory.

Kool-aid.

Some words are more correct, true, and expansive. Some are overly regimented, weak, and empty.

> > > After all this - do you really expect an answer from me?
> > Inflexible and getting it wrong, who cares?
> Inflexible and proud of it. Getting it wrong is in the eye of the beholder..

That's actually wrong.

> Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:05:17 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Unreal, you can't see the contradictions in that logic!
You can see them very well - and although there are many branches of logic - yours
is DEFINITELY not part of that realm. It's a kind of "Waynes world"..

> > I'm not a native speaker. What's yours?
> A sick man with brain damage and typos, getting picked on by a non-native speaker
> about grammar, but has trouble understanding it himself. Obviously not really
> considering the term "the living language" affecting the death of previous language, also.
Aaaah, you're all of a sudden a victim now? Well, let me give you one piece of advise, though:
if you're not in the best of shape, choose your fights carefully. There is a reason lots of other
people avoid the keyboard like the plague when they're drunk.

> Your problem is you debate very simply, despite what you claim, not understanding deeper
> contexts and relationships which price you wrong. This is a common delusion along technics
> which higher thinkers look down upon. It's child like!
Well, if you're unable or unwilling to communicate these "deeper contexts and relationships"
clearly and properly, it's a safe assumption they're actually not there.

> > Inflexible and proud of it. Getting it wrong is in the eye of the beholder..
> That's actually wrong.
If you eliminate the second part of the statement, it's at least incomplete. We can agree on that
one. But I assume science is not a very important part of your life. You've given me no indication
it actually is.

Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:04:38 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:49:38 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > I'm just content with
> > getting new people involved to revive the community.
> I can imagine. But where are they?

Well silly people are interfering rather than getting involved, and trying to take and wreck my
time. I have enough stuff to get through, and people trying to rob my life, to get too. This post is just the preliminary discussion stage, some research, before coming back for planning, preparation and deeper design factors, if there, further planning and preparation and then implementation. Of course, I've got to clear my ste first, unless somebody else wants to do
something.

> > Forth is not really that overwhelming.
> It wasn't intended to be. Quite the opposite.
> > But Forth is the best tool at the moment to get a movement of optimised stuff done
> > on that sort of processor.
> Which sort of processor? Specify...
This is insane, we have been discussing Misc and Forth processors. This is what I'm
talking about, even though the the link is clearly there from current and past discussions, you
don't see it. You think you are winning debates because you can't see the sophisticated
contextual meaning, which all advanced thinking and reasoning works on. The text books are
Often written after the work of these people, and may be written too simply.. The certain other
person might have an understanding of this a bit, which is why they play with it, which is
obvious to those with this ability (stuff all to good degree, even in professions, their the good
ones).

More stuff deleted because you don't understand what the clear information meant, but launch into attack mode.

>..but in my world there are only two kinds of
> people: those who do and those who don't.

People who do badly or plan and do better. That's a difference between small and large
success. The latter often requires a lot of effort planning and time and/or money. We are
probably not talking about anything you are familiar. When I was young and naive, I thought
like what you are saying. But now realise how limited that was.

..
> By whose standards? Yours? Your not even capable of expressing these "standards" in an
> intelligible form! Let alone usable.

It's not me. I've done work beyond anything here, before brain damage. So yes, I can judge
and get new advanced features and changes in major products, and some requested consultations.

> > I've never met a truely successful person who thinks like
> "Truly" is written without an "e".
>
> Hans Bezemer

Sorry, thanks for that. Using a historical form again, stemming out of middle english.
Note, it doesn't follow the rule. Why, I don't know. Hopefully not the American influence of
dropping spelling for lost sounds again. It maybe it dropped from common usage in the
language before that for similar reasons l. I personally don't like that, as those lost sounds
In words had meanings, which allowed us to distinguish between the spoken word, and
meanings in words. In life are you saying Red, read, and writing, are you saying read or read.
When I trted to design a denotative logical language structure, I was designing an alphabet system which described possible legitimate sounds.

This dumbing down of language has been going on for thousands of years. Some ancient languages had a lot more sophistication, even if spoken like Yoda. In matter of fact, I still mixup sentences a bit like closer to these languages.

Truly.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:09:44 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 3:05:17 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Unreal, you can't see the contradictions in that logic!
> You can see them very well - and although there are many branches of logic - yours
> is DEFINITELY not part of that realm. It's a kind of "Waynes world"..
> > > I'm not a native speaker. What's yours?
> > A sick man with brain damage and typos, getting picked on by a non-native speaker
> > about grammar, but has trouble understanding it himself. Obviously not really
> > considering the term "the living language" affecting the death of previous language, also.
> Aaaah, you're all of a sudden a victim now? Well, let me give you one piece of advise, though:
> if you're not in the best of shape, choose your fights carefully. There is a reason lots of other
> people avoid the keyboard like the plague when they're drunk.

You known this for a long time. You asked, you git an answer. But still you wrongly reply.

> > Your problem is you debate very simply, despite what you claim, not understanding deeper
> > contexts and relationships which price you wrong. This is a common delusion along technics
> > which higher thinkers look down upon. It's child like!
> Well, if you're unable or unwilling to communicate these "deeper contexts and relationships"

No, grow up and start reading properly. It's not up tor to waste my time trying to teach you,
when you are such a person. As much as I can explain, you actually need to take time thinking about contexts and meanings of words. Learn to fish.
...
> > > Inflexible and proud of it. Getting it wrong is in the eye of the beholder..
> > That's actually wrong.
> If you eliminate the second part of the statement, it's at least incomplete.

What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what it, what ever
the eye of the observer is.

> Hans Bezemer

You had better read my other reply, and stop wasting my time.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:44:33 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> You known this for a long time. You asked, you git an answer. But still you wrongly reply.
Yeah, I know. But I don't do excuses.

> No, grow up and start reading properly. It's not up tor to waste my time trying to teach you,
> when you are such a person. As much as I can explain, you actually need to take time
> thinking about contexts and meanings of words. Learn to fish.
If you're winning a debate, your ego is stroked. If you lose a debate, you have learned
something. Don't take that away from me. But you're a BAD teacher anyways, so I
won't keep up my hope.

BTW, I don't THINK about the meaning of words - I look them up. There is a generally
accepted definition for almost anything. I LOVE definitions! Context has very little
sense if you don't PROVIDE contexts.

> What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what it, what ever
> the eye of the observer is.
It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
the radix.

> You had better read my other reply, and stop wasting my time.
You're wasting your time. I'm just having fun.

Hans Bezemer

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:54:37 PM UTC-4, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:44:33 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > You known this for a long time. You asked, you git an answer. But still you wrongly reply.
> Yeah, I know. But I don't do excuses.
> > No, grow up and start reading properly. It's not up tor to waste my time trying to teach you,
> > when you are such a person. As much as I can explain, you actually need to take time
> > thinking about contexts and meanings of words. Learn to fish.
> If you're winning a debate, your ego is stroked. If you lose a debate, you have learned
> something. Don't take that away from me. But you're a BAD teacher anyways, so I
> won't keep up my hope.
>
> BTW, I don't THINK about the meaning of words - I look them up. There is a generally
> accepted definition for almost anything. I LOVE definitions! Context has very little
> sense if you don't PROVIDE contexts.
> > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what it, what ever
> > the eye of the observer is.
> It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> the radix.
> > You had better read my other reply, and stop wasting my time.
> You're wasting your time. I'm just having fun.

He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:37:12 PM UTC+2, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!
Yeah. Tell that to a moral relativist. He'll be really impressed.

Hans Bezemer

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:54:37 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:44:33 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > You known this for a long time. You asked, you git an answer. But still you wrongly reply.
> Yeah, I know. But I don't do excuses.
> > No, grow up and start reading properly. It's not up tor to waste my time trying to teach you,
> > when you are such a person. As much as I can explain, you actually need to take time
> > thinking about contexts and meanings of words. Learn to fish.
> If you're winning a debate, your ego is stroked. If you lose a debate, you have learned
> something. Don't take that away from me. But you're a BAD teacher anyways, so I
> won't keep up my hope.
>
> BTW, I don't THINK about the meaning of words - I look them up. There is a generally
> accepted definition for almost anything. I LOVE definitions! Context has very little
> sense if you don't PROVIDE contexts.
> > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what it, what ever
> > the eye of the observer is.
> It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> the radix.
> > You had better read my other reply, and stop wasting my time.
> You're wasting your time. I'm just having fun.
>
> Hans Bezemer
Sorry, as with many of your pretend points, it's delusional. You are just not a good thinker,
otherwise you would realise that truth doesn't depend on the eye of the beholder, but contexts
do.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:53:49 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:37:12 PM UTC+2, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!
> Yeah. Tell that to a moral relativist. He'll be really impressed.
>
> Hans Bezemer

Do you people ever consider how delusional victimizers (and that tends to be what they are)
speak?

Very satisfied you know a foreign language and gramma, and look up definitions, or can wreck community benefit, and stroke your egos in appreciation. :!

I've got other commitments I need to attend to rather than teach how to behave and think.
Live on your selfingratiating, or be real men and help.

On 12/09/2022 2:49 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:04:50 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
>
>>> Now, he's got you doing his work for him..
>> That's rather biblical. 'I can bring Forth a thousand and more new members if only it will
>> bow down and worship me.'
>
> You are a very sick individual, you want forth to bow down and worship you,

Who came here offering Forth a deal it couldn't refuse?

> I'm just content with
> getting new people involved to revive the community.

As I recall Jesus' response was 'Thanks, but no thanks.'

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:04:43 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:54:37 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:44:33 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > You known this for a long time. You asked, you git an answer. But still you wrongly reply.
> > Yeah, I know. But I don't do excuses.
> > > No, grow up and start reading properly. It's not up tor to waste my time trying to teach you,
> > > when you are such a person. As much as I can explain, you actually need to take time
> > > thinking about contexts and meanings of words. Learn to fish.
> > If you're winning a debate, your ego is stroked. If you lose a debate, you have learned
> > something. Don't take that away from me. But you're a BAD teacher anyways, so I
> > won't keep up my hope.
> >
> > BTW, I don't THINK about the meaning of words - I look them up. There is a generally
> > accepted definition for almost anything. I LOVE definitions! Context has very little
> > sense if you don't PROVIDE contexts.
> > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what it, what ever
> > > the eye of the observer is.
> > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > the radix.
> > > You had better read my other reply, and stop wasting my time.
> > You're wasting your time. I'm just having fun.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
> Sorry, as with many of your pretend points, it's delusional. You are just not a good thinker,
> otherwise you would realise that truth doesn't depend on the eye of the beholder, but contexts
> do.
Moral relativism is a valid philosophical stance. The proof for it is quite simple:
There is no moral framework that delivers a generally accepted outcome for every
possible moral question. 'Truth' is an even more problematic concept. It does not
equal 'reality' - otherwise nothing in the past could possibly be true.

Truth certainly doesn't enter moral question without an adequate and widely
accepted ethical framework. And I don't think you want to subscribe to moral
relativism.

And since you don't provide contexts, just statements without any justification
that discussion becomes moot in this context.

Hans Bezemer

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:22:06 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:53:49 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:37:12 PM UTC+2, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!
> > Yeah. Tell that to a moral relativist. He'll be really impressed.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
> Do you people ever consider how delusional victimizers (and that tends to be what they are)
> speak?
>
> Very satisfied you know a foreign language and gramma, and look up definitions, or can wreck community benefit, and stroke your egos in appreciation. :!
>
> I've got other commitments I need to attend to rather than teach how to behave and think.
> Live on your selfingratiating, or be real men and help.
I think I'm a helpful person, but I won't subscribe to your rules. You do what you do best.
And you can judge me till eternity, I don't care. It's futile. I've always lived by my own rules and will
Continue to do so - no matter what anyone says.

Hans Bezemer

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:27:16 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> On 12/09/2022 2:49 pm, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 12:04:50 PM UTC+10, dxforth wrote:
> >
> >>> Now, he's got you doing his work for him..
> >> That's rather biblical. 'I can bring Forth a thousand and more new members if only it will
> >> bow down and worship me.'
> >
> > You are a very sick individual, you want forth to bow down and worship you,
> Who came here offering Forth a deal it couldn't refuse?

Did he do that as well?

> > I'm just content with
> > getting new people involved to revive the community.

Do, I remember you?

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:44:19 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:04:43 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 2:54:37 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 4:44:33 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > You known this for a long time. You asked, you git an answer. But still you wrongly reply.
> > > Yeah, I know. But I don't do excuses.
> > > > No, grow up and start reading properly. It's not up tor to waste my time trying to teach you,
> > > > when you are such a person. As much as I can explain, you actually need to take time
> > > > thinking about contexts and meanings of words. Learn to fish.
> > > If you're winning a debate, your ego is stroked. If you lose a debate, you have learned
> > > something. Don't take that away from me. But you're a BAD teacher anyways, so I
> > > won't keep up my hope.
> > >
> > > BTW, I don't THINK about the meaning of words - I look them up. There is a generally
> > > accepted definition for almost anything. I LOVE definitions! Context has very little
> > > sense if you don't PROVIDE contexts.
> > > > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what it, what ever
> > > > the eye of the observer is.
> > > It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> > > the radix.
> > > > You had better read my other reply, and stop wasting my time.
> > > You're wasting your time. I'm just having fun.
> > >
> > > Hans Bezemer
> > Sorry, as with many of your pretend points, it's delusional. You are just not a good thinker,
> > otherwise you would realise that truth doesn't depend on the eye of the beholder, but contexts
> > do.
> Moral relativism is a valid philosophical stance. The proof for it is quite simple:
> There is no moral framework that delivers a generally accepted outcome for every
> possible moral question. 'Truth' is an even more problematic concept. It does not
> equal 'reality' - otherwise nothing in the past could possibly be true.
>
> Truth certainly doesn't enter moral question without an adequate and widely
> accepted ethical framework. And I don't think you want to subscribe to moral
> relativism.
>
> And since you don't provide contexts, just statements without any justification
> that discussion becomes moot in this context.
>
> Hans Bezemer

My goodness that's idiotic.

In article <c9f97ad2-7a76-4e01-bd92-511000db6d06n@googlegroups.com>,
the.beez.speaks@gmail.com says...
>
> > What does 1+1 equal. 2 or 11. It's very simple. The truth is what
it, what ever
> > the eye of the observer is.
> It's never 11. It might be 10. It doesn't depend on the "eye of the observer", but
> the radix.
>
Small point - is anyone aware of base '1' notation?

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 4:52:45 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3:22:06 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:53:49 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:37:12 PM UTC+2, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > He will never understand that. He sees himself as a victim. So you must be the aggressor. Bad aggressor, bad!
> > > Yeah. Tell that to a moral relativist. He'll be really impressed.
> > >
> > > Hans Bezemer
> > Do you people ever consider how delusional victimizers (and that tends to be what they are)
> > speak?
> >
> > Very satisfied you know a foreign language and gramma, and look up definitions, or can wreck community benefit, and stroke your egos in appreciation. :!
> >
> > I've got other commitments I need to attend to rather than teach how to behave and think.
> > Live on your selfingratiating, or be real men and help.
> I think I'm a helpful person, but I won't subscribe to your rules. You do what you do best.
> And you can judge me till eternity, I don't care. It's futile. I've always lived by my own rules and will
> Continue to do so - no matter what anyone says.
>
> Hans Bezemer

That's what self centred selfish rolle day. Know enough of them I've got to help out when they
stuff up their lives. Being dysfunction in the caring department, it's not reciprocal, even
though I am careful not to stuff up my life (nutters will do that for you, and there are too many).

Now, Hans, please go away and chuck your domineering fit somewhere else. You have had and
continue to have, negliable benefit for people here. It's your fault you are in the wrong place
and can't be bothered to correctly interpret things, and regard even absolute facts as
relativistic. Which is not credible or scientific.