If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to
prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
I think it's a highly pertinent question.
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct
his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the
correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system
is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to >>> prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the >>> correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he
needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic
facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system >>> is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example. Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
The system uses a similar process on every other example.
I think it's a highly pertinent question.
Asking for me to provide infinite conclusive proof
is an incorrect requirement.
----
Copyright 2026 Olcott
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think
he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his
basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by logicians.
They can be supported but not proven.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
André
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 9:30 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able to >>>>> prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in 2020
because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to construct >>>>> his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about the >>>>> correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you think he >>>>> needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic >>>>> facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His system >>>>> is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
No, you've completely missed the point of Fred's question. His question >>> wasn't about the 2020 USA election; that was just used as an example.
Fred's question was about how are you going to prove your ENTIRE SYSTEM
is correct?
This is best understood by how the single example
is proved correct.
Rubbish! A single example may be proven correct, but that has no bearing
on the correctness of the whole system.
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be able
to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections in
2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that all
his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self-
reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by logicians.
They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a very
idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
André
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections
in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about
the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that
all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a self- >>>>> reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by logicians.
They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You have a
*very* different definition of proof than the one used by logicians.
It's usually clear from your posts that you have very different
definitions of many things which is why people keep pressing you for
your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And once again, this is
an empirical matter, not one which can be resolved using formal logic.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a very
idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
André
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
This doesn't provide
'proof' of anything. Perhaps he was having a panic attack. Perhaps he suddenly realized he had a prior engagement. And even if he did have no evidence of election fraud that would not be proof that no such fraud occurred.
André
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will
convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be
able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the elections >>>>>> in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone about >>>>>> the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do you
think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence that
all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His
system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by logicians.
They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You have a
*very* different definition of proof than the one used by logicians.
It's usually clear from your posts that you have very different
definitions of many things which is why people keep pressing you for
your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can be
resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a very
idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
André
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
--This doesn't provide 'proof' of anything. Perhaps he was having a
panic attack. Perhaps he suddenly realized he had a prior engagement.
And even if he did have no evidence of election fraud that would not
be proof that no such fraud occurred.
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to
construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years do >>>>>>> you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump sentence >>>>>>> that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a
self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by
logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You have a
*very* different definition of proof than the one used by logicians.
It's usually clear from your posts that you have very different
definitions of many things which is why people keep pressing you for
your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't prove anything one way or another.
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the
premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't
even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned
there is the additional problem that while logic can establish the
validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can be
resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole, they
had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now do have
evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a very >>>>> idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
André
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means. Where
have I equivocated?
André
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it will >>>>>>>> convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he will be >>>>>>>> able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost the
elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone
about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years >>>>>>>> do you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump
sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>> self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by
logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You have
a *very* different definition of proof than the one used by
logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have very
different definitions of many things which is why people keep
pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't
prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the
premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim doesn't
even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims are concerned
there is the additional problem that while logic can establish the
validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth
of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can be
resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole,
they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that they
were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now do have
evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a
very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means.
Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
Challenge people to provide some and they fail.
Do everything you can to find it and fail.
On 7/12/2026 2:31 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
You dishonestly erased most of what I said.
If you look at a cow directly in the face is this
empirical proof that you are looking at a cow?
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>> will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost >>>>>>>>> the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years >>>>>>>>> do you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump
sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? His >>>>>>>>> system is not able to prove its own correctness, because of a >>>>>>>>> self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by
logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You have >>>>> a *very* different definition of proof than the one used by
logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have very
different definitions of many things which is why people keep
pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't
prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and the claim
that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the
premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim
doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims are
concerned there is the additional problem that while logic can
establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually
establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can be
resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire world"
to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the *mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem really bothered by Gödel's claim that
there are limits on what can actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the
legal notion you have no reason to be bothered by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole,
they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that they
were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now do have
evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a
very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means.
Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to
conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
Trump has not met the
*legal* burden of proof to support his claims, but that is very
different from claiming that the claims have been disproven in the
formal sense.
André
On 7/12/2026 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:31 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
You dishonestly erased most of what I said.
If you look at a cow directly in the face is this
empirical proof that you are looking at a cow?
Strawman. We're not talking about looking at a cow.
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>> will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost >>>>>>>>>> the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need to >>>>>>>>>> construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta-years >>>>>>>>>> do you think he needs to convince a believer of the Trump >>>>>>>>>> sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>> His system is not able to prove its own correctness, because >>>>>>>>>> of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by
logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You
have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used by
logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have very
different definitions of many things which is why people keep
pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure to
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't
prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any
such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and the
claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the
premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim
doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims are
concerned there is the additional problem that while logic can
establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually
establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can be >>>>>> resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire world"
to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the *mathematical*
definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned with the
mathematical notion of proof since you seem really bothered by Gödel's
claim that there are limits on what can actually be proven. Gödel
makes no claims whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're
concerned about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered
by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole,
they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that
they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now
do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a >>>>>>>> very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means.
Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to
conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not
actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal definition
of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his claims,
but that is very different from claiming that the claims have been
disproven in the formal sense.
André
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
THIS PROVESNothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
On 7/12/2026 2:51 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:31 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
You dishonestly erased most of what I said.
If you look at a cow directly in the face is this
empirical proof that you are looking at a cow?
Strawman. We're not talking about looking at a cow.
Not strawman. I am testing the exact degree that
you are a damned liar.
I believe that you could
look a cow directly in the face and equivocate
that this proves that at least one cow exists.
On 2026-07-12 13:29, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
Nobody has looked everywhere.
Challenge people to provide some and they fail.
If people fail, that simply means that they have failed. It does not
provide proof of the absence of evidence.
Do everything you can to find it and fail.
Again, that just means you failed; it isn't proof, at least not in the mathematical sense. These might suffice to meet a legal burden of proof,
but that's an entirely different animal.
André
On 7/12/2026 2:31 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Where is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Look everywhere and find none.
That's not evidence.
You dishonestly erased most of what I said.
If you look at a cow directly in the face is this
empirical proof that you are looking at a cow?
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>> will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost >>>>>>>>>>> the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>> to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta- >>>>>>>>>>> years do you think he needs to convince a believer of the >>>>>>>>>>> Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>> His system is not able to prove its own correctness, because >>>>>>>>>>> of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by
logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You
have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used by >>>>>>> logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have very >>>>>>> different definitions of many things which is why people keep
pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't
prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any
such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and
the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the
premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for
the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim
doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims are >>>>> concerned there is the additional problem that while logic can
establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually
establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can be >>>>>>> resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the *mathematical*
definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned with the
mathematical notion of proof since you seem really bothered by
Gödel's claim that there are limits on what can actually be proven.
Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all you're
concerned about is the legal notion you have no reason to be bothered
by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole,
they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that
they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now
do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a >>>>>>>>> very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means.
Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to
conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not
actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his claims,
but that is very different from claiming that the claims have been
disproven in the formal sense.
André
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:That's not evidence.
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that he >>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump lost >>>>>>>>>>>> the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>> to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince anyone >>>>>>>>>>>> about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many peta- >>>>>>>>>>>> years do you think he needs to convince a believer of the >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules are correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>> His system is not able to prove its own correctness, because >>>>>>>>>>>> of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You >>>>>>>> have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used by >>>>>>>> logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have very >>>>>>>> different definitions of many things which is why people keep >>>>>>>> pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't >>>>>> prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any
such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and
the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the >>>>>> premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible for >>>>>> the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your claim >>>>>> doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical claims
are concerned there is the additional problem that while logic can >>>>>> establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* actually
establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can >>>>>>>> be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the *mathematical*
definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned with the
mathematical notion of proof since you seem really bothered by
Gödel's claim that there are limits on what can actually be proven.
Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about legal proofs, so if all
you're concerned about is the legal notion you have no reason to be
bothered by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black hole, >>>>>> they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim that
they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And we now >>>>>> do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have a >>>>>>>>>> very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means. >>>>>> Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to
conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not
actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his claims,
but that is very different from claiming that the claims have been
disproven in the formal sense.
André
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
The dumb fucks in the world need to hear these strongest
words or they will continue to believe that Trump is
not a damned liar.
On 2026-07-12 14:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election is as strong as empirical
proof gets that there is no evidence.
Proof that there is no evidence of X is not the same thing as proof that
X is false.
As soon as you start talking about 'empirical proof' is is clear that
you are *not* discussing proof as used in mathematics, which means you
are posting to the entirely wrong newsgroups.
André
The dumb fucks in the world need to hear these strongest
words or they will continue to believe that Trump is
not a damned liar.
On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:That's not evidence.
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks that >>>>>>>>>>>>> he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" 'Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>> lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he need >>>>>>>>>>>>> to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many >>>>>>>>>>>>> peta- years do you think he needs to convince a believer of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules are >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>> His system is not able to prove its own correctness, >>>>>>>>>>>>> because of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully
searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You >>>>>>>>> have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used >>>>>>>>> by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have >>>>>>>>> very different definitions of many things which is why people >>>>>>>>> keep pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It doesn't >>>>>>> prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of any >>>>> such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence and
the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from the >>>>>>> premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically impossible
for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Your >>>>>>> claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where empirical
claims are concerned there is the additional problem that while >>>>>>> logic can establish the validity of an argument, logic *cannot* >>>>>>> actually establish the truth of empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can >>>>>>>>> be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the
*mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned
with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem really
bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what can
actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about legal
proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal notion you
have no reason to be bothered by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black
hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to claim >>>>>>> that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be false. And >>>>>>> we now do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump
She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that
he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have >>>>>>>>>>> a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate
proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually means. >>>>>>> Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings to >>>>> conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not
actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is
simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his
claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims
have been disproven in the formal sense.
André
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election
On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:That's not evidence.
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how many >>>>>>>>>>>>>> peta- years do you think he needs to convince a believer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts and rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own
correctness, because of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: You >>>>>>>>>> have a *very* different definition of proof than the one used >>>>>>>>>> by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that you have >>>>>>>>>> very different definitions of many things which is why people >>>>>>>>>> keep pressing you for your definition of these terms.
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively
proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It
doesn't prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of
any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such evidence >>>>>> and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be >>>>>>>> false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And where >>>>>>>> empirical claims are concerned there is the additional problem >>>>>>>> that while logic can establish the validity of an argument,
logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of empirical premises. >>>>>>>>
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which can >>>>>>>>>> be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire
world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the
*mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned >>>>>> with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem really
bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what can
actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about legal >>>>>> proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal notion you
have no reason to be bothered by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black
hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to
claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be
false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct.
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously have >>>>>>>>>>>> a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat.
He could have left for any number of reasons.
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually
means. Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings
to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do not >>>>>> actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal
definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the
Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim is >>>>>> simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his
claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims
have been disproven in the formal sense.
André
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election
It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not
even evidence of other things.
Saying this is it simply not evidence without sayingOn 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
exactly what it is not evidence is
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
On 7/12/2026 4:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:27 PM, dbush wrote:
On 7/12/2026 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:That's not evidence.
On 7/12/2026 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 2:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:57, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 1:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 12:00, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 12:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 10:51, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 11:38 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2026-07-12 08:15, olcott wrote:
On 7/12/2026 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
If I am correct Olcott wants to build a system such that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will convince everybody of the truth. E.g. he thinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he will be able to prove that the 'Trump sentence'" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Trump lost the elections in 2020 because of fraud' is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not true.
A few questions:
1) How many petabytes of basic-facts and rules does he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to construct his proof?
2) Given that even after 20 years he did not convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyone about the correctness of one 'basic fact', how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many peta- years do you think he needs to convince a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer of the Trump sentence that all his basic facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rules are correct?
3) How is Olcott going to prove that his system is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct? His system is not able to prove its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness, because of a self- reference.
This aspect can be implemented manually by carefully >>>>>>>>>>>>>> searching for the answer to this one question:
Was there any actual evidence of election fraud
that could have possibly change the outcome of
the 2020 presidential election?
Empirical questions cannot be proven in the sense used by >>>>>>>>>>>>> logicians. They can be supported but not proven.
In this case it can.
The fact that you believe this simply reinforces my point: >>>>>>>>>>> You have a *very* different definition of proof than the one >>>>>>>>>>> used by logicians. It's usually clear from your posts that >>>>>>>>>>> you have very different definitions of many things which is >>>>>>>>>>> why people keep pressing you for your definition of these terms. >>>>>>>>>>>
The utter and complete failure toAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
produce any actual evidence by anyone ever conclusively >>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the claim has no supporting basis thus is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes of course that is perfectly true.
On the other hand the absence of evidence within
the claim of evidence proves a lie.
No. It demonstrates that he has not provided evidence. It
doesn't prove anything one way or another.
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
There's a big difference between saying that you are unaware of >>>>>>> any such evidence or that Trump has failed to supply such
evidence and the claim that "no evidence exists in the entire
world".
I am not saying that dip shit.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
IT IS A FACT THAT
There is no actual evidence in the whole world
of any election fraud at all that could possibly
change the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Where is the evidence of this "fact"?
A proof is a an argument in which the conclusion follows from >>>>>>>>> the premises, i.e. an argument in which it is logically
impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be >>>>>>>>> false. Your claim doesn't even remotely resemble that. And
where empirical claims are concerned there is the additional >>>>>>>>> problem that while logic can establish the validity of an
argument, logic *cannot* actually establish the truth of
empirical premises.
And once again, this is an empirical matter, not one which >>>>>>>>>>> can be resolved using formal logic.
That no one can possibly provide any actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly prove that election
fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential proves
the absence of evidence, thus the claim is baseless.
Baseless and proven false are two entirely different things. >>>>>>>>>
The fact that no evidence exists in the entire world
is by itself complete prove that no evidence exists
in the entire world.
Except you have no proof that "no evidence exists in the entire >>>>>>> world" to offer.
The problem is that you seem to be falling back on the *legal*
definition of proof, which is very different from the
*mathematical* definition of proof; yet you claim to be concerned >>>>>>> with the mathematical notion of proof since you seem really
bothered by Gödel's claim that there are limits on what can
actually be proven. Gödel makes no claims whatsoever about legal >>>>>>> proofs, so if all you're concerned about is the legal notion you >>>>>>> have no reason to be bothered by Gödel.
When Mitchell and Laplace first proposed the idea of a black >>>>>>>>> hole, they had no evidence that such things existed. But to >>>>>>>>> claim that they were therefore proven wrong would simply be >>>>>>>>> false. And we now do have evidence that they were correct.
He could have left for any number of reasons.One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
Kristen Welker's (Meet the Press) interview of Trump >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She cornered him and he gave up and left proving that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he has no evidence of election fraud.
How on earth would that constitute proof? You obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very idiosyncratic definition of 'proof'.
It is a fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
This made his only option to get up and leave in defeat. >>>>>>>>>>>
Rational minds that fully know that no actual evidence
exists will not equivocate on this point. That you equivocate >>>>>>>>>> proves that there is something up with you.
I don't think you know what the word 'equivocate' actually
means. Where have I equivocated?
Equivocate means to intentionally use vague, ambiguous,
or double-meaning language to conceal the truth, mislead
listeners, or avoid making a definitive commitment.
Nowhere did I use vague or ambiguous language or double-meanings >>>>>>> to conceal the truth. I simply pointed out that your claims do
not actually constitute anything resembling proof on the formal >>>>>>> definition of proof.
You keep dodging the fact that there is no actual evidence
of election fraud that could possibly change the outcome
of the 2020 presidential election.
Note that I do not actually believe that there was fraud in the >>>>>>> Election, nor do I believe that there is evidence of election
irregularities sufficient to support widespread fraud. My claim >>>>>>> is simply that this has not actually been *proven*.
That is the exact weasel words that keep the dumb fucks
believing that there was fraud.
In other words, you don't know what "proof" means.
Trump has not met the *legal* burden of proof to support his
claims, but that is very different from claiming that the claims >>>>>>> have been disproven in the formal sense.
André
There is no fucking actual evidence in the whole fucking world
that there was any election fraud at all THAT COULD POSSIBLY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
What is the evidence that no such evidence exists?
Nothing, because you didn't actually prove anything.
THIS PROVES
That no human being on the planet ever presented any
actual evidence what-so-ever of any election fraud
that could have possibly changed the outcome of the
2020 presidential election
It is proof of somethings and evidence of others and not
even evidence of other things.
What is isn't is evidence that there was no election interference.
On 7/12/2026 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
Saying this is it simply not evidence without saying
exactly what it is not evidence is
One-two punch Destroys Liars
#WhatIsTheEvidence
#ThatIsNotEvidence
Around and around until Defeated
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,127 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 36:24:20 |
| Calls: | 14,430 |
| Files: | 186,410 |
| D/L today: |
277 files (78,142K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,552,597 |