Requiring the logically impossible is always an invalid requirement

[Skepdick]

Anything that H can {say, predict, believe or guess}
that D will do is always contradicted by D.

Fuck off. idiot.

Go ahead and contradict the Boolean I have in my head. Is it True or False?

[PeteOlcott]

When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.

You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.

You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.

[Skepdick]

When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.

You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.

Fuck off. Idiot.

You deserve to be treated even worse than what I have to give today.

[PeteOlcott]

When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.

You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.

Fuck off. Idiot.

You deserve to be treated even worse than what I have to give today.

Case in point.

Your name indicates that your primary goal is to
thwart any honest dialogue.

[Skepdick]

When construed as a Boolean return value from termination analyzer H
for input input D that does that opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns we know that it must be (True or False) & Wrong.
You know this an play head games so that your own behavior matches
your chosen name.

You are not merely skeptical you also intend to be a Jack Ass about
being skeptical.

Fuck off. Idiot.

You deserve to be treated even worse than what I have to give today.

Case in point.

Your name indicates that your primary goal is to
thwart any honest dialogue.

Oh no! The liar's Paradox!

Who's the liar? Such mystery!

Am I the liar?!?
Is Olcott the liar ?!?!

How would we ever know?

The only one who can't solve it is Olcott himself.

[PeteOlcott]

You did have a sequence of replies that were reasonable and
addressed the points that I made.

When I actually proved my point so that there was no actual
rebuttal you began spouting nonsense.

[Skepdick]

You did have a sequence of replies that were reasonable and
addressed the points that I made.

When I actually proved my point so that there was no actual
rebuttal you began spouting nonsense.

Every time you realize how trivial the rebutal was you begins spouting nonsense.