From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 05/28/2026 12:51 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/28/2026 9:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 05/27/2026 01:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 4/9/2026 12:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 4/9/2026 5:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In sci.math Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/7/2026 12:46 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

[ .... ]

Why are seemingly trying to justify pedo's?

You're the sort of person who, 90 years ago in Europe, would be
asking
"why are you trying to justify Jews?".

Strange! pedo vs a person who is jewish?

I just don't believe you're dumb enough not to see the analogy. We're >>>>> talking about two groups of people who aren't popular in popular
culture
(of whatever time), and bullies like you think that justifies them in >>>>> harrassing members of those groups with degrading epithets.

You used the term "low-life pedo" in this thread, implying that the
target of your nastiness was less than human. I suggest you
reconsider
all the implications, and then apologise publicly to Peter Olcott in >>>>> this thread.

Besides everything else, individuals' sexual psychology is not on
topic
in the newsgroups this thread is posted to.

You go ahead and converse with the god damn pedo.

Well, yeah. Touche. Damn. It's just that I have a certain level of
disdain for such people. I just do. Sorry. Not the Jews! Uggg. Anyway, >>>> sorry.

Don't confuse argument with support.


Furthermore, save your outrage for "terrorists & traffickers" like
the "Epstein class", not so much "addled idiots who browse 4-chan".

Epstein? You mean perverts like a guy on this group, but on a grander
scale?

Get some real problems. (And those aren't my problems.)


You're welcome to despise anybody you want for whatever reason,
i.e., "it's a free country", then though the "wet blanket"
approach as like "Godwin's Nazi law" (that eventually a long-enough
thread will mention the Nazis who once were simply the fascist
enemy and thus end), has that "CMT's paedo law" isn't in effect here.


We still need a good word for "loves children", in the platonic sort
of sense, idea being generally to love children and other innocent
and nice animals.


Anyways, trolls like "JG" or "PO" in their bot-like anti-socialism,
here has that anti-socialism is still having its own grounds.

It's not so simple as that, if we're talking
about rights and responsibilities,
vis-a-vis, consent and exploitation.

It's a usual idea where there are personal liberties that two parties
can agree, and make consent, particularly informed consent,
about whatever they care to do. Then a usual point of law is
that some parties are limited or incapable of making consent.

It's always figured that consent would also be so for the informed
consent, that it would always be un-surprising the exercise of
what's agreed or allowed, about full consent.

So anyways in countries like the United States, there's an
age of majority, it's 18 everywhere, before which the citizens
have status as a minor, some of the rights of minors delegated
to their parents or in rare cases guardians, or the emancipated
minors themselves. Various cultures have laws about what
makes for adulthood legally, for example 12 or 13 in Judaism
or 14 or 15 in Islam, was 14 in New Mexico or as with regards
to the Quincenerea or Confirmation, some cultures allow
dating after 16, various ranges of adulthood and majority,
vis-a-vis 18 and majority in most countries, and some rare cases
of emancipation of minors.

Then, turning 18 isn't a magic number and is just another day,
physically and emotionally and psychologically, while yet it
is as while a particular day, having counted up enough days
that according to the body of law results a one person - one vote.


So there are rights and responsibilities, then about agreements
and activities, consent and exploitation. Parents have rights,
children have rights, parents have particular rights with regards
to their own children, these kinds of things.



Here then the snitch-tech and stalk-tech after ad-tech is
considered quite exploitative. Matters of the _informed_
consent and both the auditability and the accountability,
basically reflect on the "Fair Credit Reporting Act", that
the smear-tech and the shame-tech, is having gone beyond
opportunistic: to exploitative.


Then, the "terrorists & traffickers", these are actually
criminal enterprises that are criminal themselves,
vis-a-vis actions of harm or inactions of neglect,
about rights and responsibilities, and upholding them.


Then, since about the '90's on the Internet and especially
since 9/11, "think of the children" became a slogan, earnest
for some, satirical for others, absolute for some, diabolical
for others, to justify what otherwise would be abuses,
of the invasionary and interfering sort, and about burdening
parents with punishments and penalties about "oversight"
and "observation", since otherwise a usual part of police
work was simply lost & found of children daily.

So, the same sorts of fear-mongering made for the lack
of regulation and controls of the varieties of s*-tech,
and thus its abuses. Then, counting "social" media among
s*-tech, the usual sorts of in-group and out-group tactics
of blame-goating and the echo-chamber, have resulted
what authors like Orwell warned us about.

Back then we were more worried about "Big Brother"
than "stranger danger". The specters of communism
and fascism, and of corporate monopoly and anarchy,
were, and are, considered more "clear and present"
dangers, and less "bogey-man and wolf stories".


About perversion then, there's a usual idea that
personality and psychology of the sexual sort
are on a "spectrum", as it were, then as above
about consent versus exploitation, and where
the open and obvious corruption is just plain evil.





Then, PO is rather a crankety-troll, yet much like
the other crankety-troll bots of the incorrigeable
sort, like WM or JG, like crankety-troll sock-bots,
they are examples of various wrong-headed accounts
that are quite common, thinking they're unique when
they're barely distinct, tripping over themselves and
always being contradicted, it's a sad fact that their
problems bedevil many academicians who in their
Dunning-Kruger miasma don't even know the difference.


So, I don't even know that it's not a bot with a stolen identity.



Then there are usual idiots who don't much know
the higher mathematics and the advanced mathematics,
and the lowest mathematics and live in a digital world,
not just cranky bots, not even aware mathematics is real.


Anyways, when I write about mathematics and logic
here, I have a point, it's more than squiggles on a screen,
and if you think it's easy to beat down stupid crankety-trolls,
try me.




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 05/28/2026 09:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/28/2026 6:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/28/2026 4:20 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

[Olcott] is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.

^^^^
Nothing to be joking about. Cite evidence or retract.

(No F'up2 this time.)

The 2015 Case (Nebraska)
Court documents from April 2015 detail the arrest of a Peter Olcott in
Sarpy County, Nebraska. Investigators found a significant amount of
child pornography, including boxes of photos, magazines, and VHS tapes.

The "God" Claim: According to court records and police testimony, Olcott >>> told investigators he believed the material was legal because he was
God.

Defense: His legal representation argued at the time that the images
were legal as defined by the Supreme Court, though a judge denied a bond >>> reduction due to the severity of the charges and the nature of the
evidence.

The requested and required *citation is missing*.

Also, there are 5 people named "Peter Olcott" on LinkedIn already (all in
the USA and Canada), although one of them could be the person described
above because the county and state match.

So, assuming that the above is true, what makes you believe that the
"olcott" posting there is the person described above?

Olcott himself knows all about it. Ask him. Its the right guy indeed.

It sounds kind of familiar, doing a crime then claiming non-culpability.
That's what criminal sorts of informants
do in their criminal activities conspiring to commit crimes
then in their cases since their business is criminal investigations,
drumming up business.

Basically about "intent", has that "intent" at some point changed
meaning in accounts of case law in criminal law. At some point there
was that "means, opportunity, and intent", or establishing a motive,
was that a crime was already determined to have been committed, then
for matters of "reasonable doubt", these were usual check-marks to
establish that otherwise a John Doe was actually one Joe Q. Doer,
where according to the investigation of events reported as a crime,
that a crime was considered to have been committed, then about
hanging it on the doer.

So, at some point "intent" was changed from "intent to commit the crime"
the act that is the crime, to "intent to commit a crime",
whether the act was supposedly some sham and not itself "intended"
to be a crime. This seems a direct violation of "equal protections",
the usual idea that whoever was the doer of what's determined to be
a crime, committed a crime, that it's still a crime, regardless of
"intent", and they still did it, regardless "intent".


So, the party or subject in that case, claiming personal reasons
why what they do these criminal acts that the law doesn't apply,
is quite the same as any accounts of "criminal informants" or
"sting operations", I suppose with "sting" being another aspect
of "s*-tech".



The rent-a-cammerista in the mall shop changing room, basically
has that any sort of spy-ing eventually amounts to having
committed a crime, and since it's an active sort of activity,
as opposed to crimes of negligence, then something like the
"Dark Web", which is supposedly some identity-hiding criminal
marketplace, alike something like "Tor" IP-hiding or "Mixmaster"
remailer, I've never been yet the idea is that it's largely full
of feds and criminals that are feds and criminals that are largely
constantly busting each other, coming out from their "undercover cover", turning each other into informants on each other,
doing crimes.


So, I got here about 8 bazillion counts of some John (or Jane)
Doe's doing what by their action are crimes, then as to whether
"intent" (to commit a crime) isn't just part of "means, opportunity,
and intent", or modus operandi, no-alibi, and intent, that
furthermore that anybody who claims that their doing crimes
is "lawful", that many or most of those are also violations
of "equal protections", since "who knows / who cares / who pays"
is not "equal protections".


So, that PO's "God" claim is pretty much the same as Squids
or Dark-Webbers or people who know too much and so are either
liable or negligent, and they have the largest smut-stash of all.


So, anybody who pulls the "God" or "lawful purposes" defense
after being caught doing a crime: now they did two crimes.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

On 6/3/2026 8:33 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 05/28/2026 09:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/28/2026 6:45 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/28/2026 4:20 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

[Olcott] is strange. A low life pedo, and thinks he is god.

-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^^^
Nothing to be joking about.-a Cite evidence or retract.

(No F'up2 this time.)

The 2015 Case (Nebraska)
Court documents from April 2015 detail the arrest of a Peter Olcott in >>>> Sarpy County, Nebraska. Investigators found a significant amount of
child pornography, including boxes of photos, magazines, and VHS tapes. >>>>
The "God" Claim: According to court records and police testimony,
Olcott
told investigators he believed the material was legal because he was
God.

Defense: His legal representation argued at the time that the images
were legal as defined by the Supreme Court, though a judge denied a
bond
reduction due to the severity of the charges and the nature of the
evidence.

The requested and required *citation is missing*.

Also, there are 5 people named "Peter Olcott" on LinkedIn already
(all in
the USA and Canada), although one of them could be the person described
above because the county and state match.

So, assuming that the above is true, what makes you believe that the
"olcott" posting there is the person described above?

Olcott himself knows all about it. Ask him. Its the right guy indeed.

It sounds kind of familiar, doing a crime then claiming non-culpability.

Well, PO claimed to be GOD in that case.

[...]

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2