[continued from previous message]   
      
   that H does go through to make its non-halting decision, followed by it   
   halting.   
      
   If the steps encoded in P say anything else, you erred when you built   
   the encoding, or LIED when you said you did things by the proof.   
      
   Thus, by your definition above, since the steps encoded in this P lead   
   to it halting, the semantic Halting Property of this input is to halt,   
   and thus your claim that H is right is proven wrong.   
      
   The problem is you don't have H actually look at the steps encoded in   
   the input, but incorrect assume that the steps for H encoded in the   
   input are somehow for a different H, or you LIED about properly encoding   
   the input to include THIS H.   
      
   Sorry, all you have done is proven you are just a liar.   
      
   I predict that you will just ignore your error and this detailed   
   explaination, and just repeat yourself, showing you are just brain dead.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)