I only claimed an APPARENT discovery. It is easy as pie; to prove that I made an apparent discovery.

You claim I was committing a deliberate falsehood. How can you prove that? You cannot. It is you who say it.

Quote:

“No working example means you have proved nothing, but you are still asking people for money without any proof.”

That is not correct. Also, Mark’s rules prohibit me implying any money is sought. Am I allowed to say that my apparent discovery is “on the market”, but that no-one is expected to get financially involved without evaluating it (via NDA) for themselves? If I cannot say that, how Mark do you expect me to reply to Earl?

Quote:

“To me that mean you are a scammer.”

Your premise on which your belief is based, is as I have shown, wrong.
***********************************************************************

Quote:

“You have been posting your claims for over a year, in that time it should have been easy to write a simple prototype.”

I wrote a kind of simple prototype- I looked at whether the idea would work for zeroes and ones. That should provide a ready link to the technical computer world. I have a lot of other things to do. I am not a career computer-programmer.

Quote:

“NO-ONE, I repeat NO-ONE is required to do anything for you to support your own claims, that all rests on your shoulder - no-one else. In all the time you has been posting you could have download free programming lessons and compilers and written your so-called-compressor by now. Instead you keep spending your time begging for money and making excuses that fall apart when examined.”

I came to this place after reading about “Near-Zero” in the newspaper, and wondering how such a technology may work. (A Google search led here later.) When I analysed the issue, I discovered what appeared to be a solution. I have analysed similar problems before. I also found would could be evidence that both Near-Zero and Euclid discoveries may have been on to something real. My attitude was to not be prejudiced.

I had other things to do. I am not exactly begging for money, I just mentioned that my living conditions are such that if there are people who want this type of technology, and if I have it, it is logical to come to some mutually rewarding deal. If Mark doesn’t want me to say that, then Mark, please tell me in your own words how you think I can answer Earl on that issue?

Quote:

“In every way you are doing the same scam as NetZero and Euclid by asking for money while making all sorts of lame excuses why you can’t demo your compression.”

As I said, WRONG.

The demo of my APPARENT discovery is but an NDA away to an appropriate interested party.

You know that potentially patentable technology cannot be published if it is going to qualify for patent protection.

Quote:

“It is not defamation if it is the truth, and the truth is that after all this time you can’t show any working program to back up your claims - thus you are a scammer.”

I do not have to “show a so-called “working programme”, or prevent patentability by publishing detail here, to prove that I have made an apparent discovery.

As an apparent discovery allows for the possibility of having made a mistake, my word is probably enough.

To prove to a court that such “apparent discovery” exists is child’s play, but I am not interested in court action unless I suppose you want to drag yourself there, as-it-were. Perhaps i can save you.

…

If someone who claims to have made an apparent breakthrough in data-storage efficiency, does not have a “working programme”, that does NOT prove they are a scammer. It may prove nothing more than that they have only worked out a logical procedure, that exists as a theory.

Quote:

“Sorry if the truth hurts, but the truth is the truth, …”

If you are a fan of truth, then this debate is pointless, as I am very keen on truth.

Also people should not act in a way that could lead to defamation actions.

I could tell you in one sentence or two, the guts of this breakthrough, but it is too valuable to give away like this, given my present situation.

I can say it is a phenomenal (apparent) discovery, that will revoltionise a great deal in science generally, I suspect. It is like a law of Nature that has been uncovered

I wil try and edit my post to satisfy your rule:

Earl, you keep repeating an argument that I have already answered.

I will post the next bit separately to help identify what is a problem to Mark.

You are not addressing the issue. I said the discovery was apparent. I said I could be mistaken. I have tons of proof that I have made an apparent discovery. As someone has signed a non-disclosure agreement, they could testify that the apparent discovery exists, as they will be seeing it.

PLEASE stop confusing me, a new-comer, with the object of your annoyance, presumably Euclid Discoveries.

Re: “No sensnsible investor will give you money without asking for proof that it works. Are you going to sue investors too?”: I already said (and how does Mark think i can answer this without breaking his rules?) that the process is that if someone wanted to invest, they would sign a non-disclosure agreement and see the apparent discovery for themselves. If they were not confidant as to whether it would work (and I never guaranteed it would work, it is, after all, an APPARENT discovery, i.e. it MAY work) , they could suggest an expert loking at it, say Tim Bell, who of course, would also need to sign a non-disclosure agreement and be a trustworthy person.

I do not have money for lawyers, though I have relatives who are lawyers, and more than this, but my comment was a rhetorical comment- i.e. I should have said “people who make false accusations, or commit defamation, could face lawsuits.” I know someone experienced in defamation law, but I cannot be bothered alarming you. I am not interested in anything but truth and peace, i.e. real peace not fake peace.

I have no problem about proving my claims about having made an apparent discovery. It would take one paragraph to prove them.

Re: getting a “so-called” working programme going, I am not in a position currently to do this- someone with knowledge of the industry could try and do this.

Problem #1, I have off-line copies of your posts to give to the judge, and s/he will ask you for a demo, a demo you can’t give because you don’t have a working program. Opps, sucks to be you.

Problem #2, Who will come near you and your compression scheme if you sue the people who ask for proof? No sensible investor will give you money without asking for proof that it works. Are you going to sue investors too?

PS. You don’t have money for repairs to your computer, but have money for lawyers? Standard scammer action to me, call in the lawyers when people ask you to prove your claims. I wonder why it is more important to sue rather than get a working program going?

No working example means you have proved nothing, but you are still asking people for money without any proof.

To me that mean you are a scammer.

You have been posting your claims for over a year, in that time it should have been easy to write a simple prototype.

NO-ONE, I repeat NO-ONE is required to do anything for you to support your own claims, that all rests on your shoulder - no-one else. In all the time you has been posting you could have download free programming lessons and compilers and written your so-called-compressor by now. Instead you keep spending your time begging for money and making excuses that fall apart when examined.

In every way you are doing the same scam as NetZero and Euclid by asking for money while making all sorts of lame excuses why you can’t demo your compression.

It is not defamation if it is the truth, and the truth is that after all this time you can’t show any working program to back up your claims - thus you are a scammer. Sorry if the truth hurts, but the truth is the truth, sucks to be you.

- Mark

How do you expect a reply to Earl’s “prove it” without adressing the issue of intellectual property value? If you do not want anything that suggest this discovery I apparently made is on the market, then please delete Earl’s post 11.

If you will not allow right of reply, please delete ALL MY POSTS.

I will repost after this.

I told you numerous times, I apparenty discovered a process to store data more efficiently. I call it “space computing”.

Earl, you could try to act like people on the internet are real