text:
Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

Recommended Posts

Newt Gingrich responds to Palin's comments regarding Obama's "death panels." I love how George Stephanopoulos actually stands up and calls him out on his falsehoods... twice:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8287396

Share on other sites

It's odd where they cut that video, but I agree that it highlights the line of demarcation between legitimate concerns and fear-mongering. Gingrich is right up against it, and hinting well over it. Palin can't even tell it's there (and could care even less). She might as well be guest-hosting for Rush.

Share on other sites

This thread is filled with so much disinformation and so lacking in objective reasoning I don't even know where to start. The Op started by highlighting parts of the memo from the right, so lets look at parts of the memo from the left.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/fight

We should demonstrate that we are the majority by chanting: When the other side gets too loud, we should shut them down with chants that counter their message like “Health Care Can’t Wait!” and “Health Care Delayed is Health Care Denied” and prep people to chant at key points when the other side gets most disruptive.

Do not debate on their “policy” points.

Interrupt them when they get disruptive and refocus the meeting.

Both sides organized groups and gave them ideas to make them themself visible and have their opinion heard. The left has included tactics that are more likened to shutting down the debate. Disagree? Lets look at what happened...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/aug/08/georgia-democrat-rages-against-local-doctor-over-h/

Tensions are running so high at town hall meetings that Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, yelled at a local doctor concerned about health care after mistaking him for an "astroturf" political operative looking for a fight.

Mr. Scott became visibly agitated when one of his constituents, a practicing doctor, asked a few questions about health care reform during a town hall meeting. The meeting was held to discuss a road project, but was opened up for questions near the end. That's when Dr. Brian Hill stood up to speak.

Dr. Hill asked Mr. Scott why he was going to vote for a health care plan similar to that implemented in Massachusetts "that is shown not to work" and if he supported a government-provided health care insurance option.

The congressman replied by accusing the doctor of "hijacking" his event.

"I'm listening to my constituents, OK?" Scott said, "These are people who live in the 13th Congressional district, who vote in this district. That’s who I’ve got to respond to … So what you’ve got to understand, those of you who are here, who have taken and came and hijacked this event we dealing with here, this is not a health care event."

"You chose to come and to do it on your own," he yelled. "Not a single one of you had the decency to call my office and set up for a meeting." He went on, in a threatening voice, "You want a meeting with me on health care, I'll give it to you!"

Looks like this dem followed the memo from the left to a T.

I always thought town halls were a forum for voters to discuss their concerns with their representatives, so the reps could accurately represnt them in washington.

Does Obamas hope and change, in this context, mean now the representatives tell their constituents what they will be legislating for in washington?

What happened in St. Louis?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/shock-video-dems-sneak-union-thugs-into.html

DEMS SNEAK UNION THUGS INTO CARNAHAN TOWN HALL-- 1,000 Tea Party Taxpayers Locked Out! Over 1,000 St. Louis Tea Party Taxpayers showed up at the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in South St. Louis tonight. The Carnahan staff was sneaking in SEIU members in the side door marked "handicapped." In this video you see one Carnahan supporter allowed into the meeting at Bernard Middle School through a side door. There were 1,000 tea party taxpayers stranded outside the main door.

When two SEIU members attempted to get in the same side door marked "handicapped" the crowd went nuts and blocked them at the door. Did you notice how nonchalant the SIEU members were about getting inside the door? Like they knew right where to go.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument

St. Louis County police arrested six people, including a Post-Dispatch reporter, during a demonstration Thursday evening outside a forum on aging called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis.

Two of the people were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances, police say.

You may disagree with the source, but the videos at the link speak for themself.

I have heard no reports of an opponent of Health care reform being arrested, only those in favor of it. That included one lady that admitted to being an employee of Carnahan. And who called out the union thugs? So who is hiring who? Still disagree? how about this?

An email set up by the white house to report opposers. What could that information be used for? Clarification? Objective reasoning would say no, given the reputation Chicago style politics are known for. More likely it would be used to marginalize opposers in the future or maybe set up political re-education programs for dissenters.

Still disagree? lets continue...

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-grassroots10-2009aug10,0,7896694.story

Reporting from Washington -- To win the White House, Barack Obama and his political team built a vast grass-roots network of supporters and volunteers that came to be considered one of the most valuable assets in American politics. Their ambition after the election was to reshape the network, with its trained organizers and 13 million e-mail addresses, into a ground-level force to push the new president's policy goals.

...snip...

Staffers have been hired so far in 42 states, said the group's deputy director, Jeremy Bird, and he expects to have paid workers in every state in a matter of weeks.

So I ask you again, who is hiring who?

Another fact that has seemed to go right over the OPs head, is that almost everybody wants health care reform, but not in the form of a 1000 page bill that Obama is supporting, but has curiously exempted the unions, himself and the rest of the bureaucrats from, not to mention doing everything he can to keep from reading it so the American people understand it. Thats whats being opposed, not health care reform.

Has everybody forgotten during the campaign he wanted every American to have access to the same health care the politicians get?

Or how about stating that he would invite members of the senate and congress to the white house to read the bill line for line if he were elected?

As far as the OP not being able to connect the relevance in the bill being a single-payer program, let me help you out. The bait you swallowed, hook, line and sinker was calling this plan health care reform. If you would actually read it before you project whats in it you would know that after 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current policy expires, you quit or switch jobs, you are automatically enrolled in the govenrments program, effectively eliminating private health insurance. Thats single payer, socialized health care and what the opposers are opposing, not health care reform. Go to youtube an search "Obama in his own words" and see what he has to say about eliminating private health care and the single payer system. You can also go here and see for yourself whats in the bill.

I appeal to the OP to remove the blinders and allow yourself to look at this from both sides.

Share on other sites

I appeal to you to stop with the personal comments, and remember that my point was about much more than a single memo. This is not some phenomenon which I personally made up. It's happening everywhere, and all major outlets are talking about how rabid things have become.

Further, in your post above, you have attributed a LOT of thoughts and positions to me which I simply do not hold or believe. If you wish to ask me my opinion on a matter, then please do so. However, I implore you to cease and desist making up for yourself how I feel about various things, and filling in gaps with your own preconceptions. I don't know you, which also means you don't know me. Keep that in mind, friend.

This isn't about left and right. It's about the quality of discourse in our nation (or lack thereof) and the way we seem to be throwing gladiators to the lions instead of intellectually doing what's best for our collective futures.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I have heard no reports of an opponent of Health care reform being arrested, only those in favor of it.

Incredulity is not a valid form of argument here.

An email set up by the white house to report opposers. What could that information be used for? Clarification?

Yes, for rebutting the misinformation that is out there. In fact, it's become so bad, that the White House opened this site this morning:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

Objective reasoning would say no, given the reputation Chicago style politics are known for.

Poisoning the well is ALSO not a valid form of argument here.

More likely it would be used to marginalize opposers in the future or maybe set up political re-education programs for dissenters.

Nor are strawmen or slippery slopes.

Another fact that has seemed to go right over the OPs head, is that almost everybody wants health care reform, but not in the form of a 1000 page bill that Obama is supporting

When exactly did that go over my head? I completely agree. That was not, however, my point. Care to try again?

Thats whats being opposed, not health care reform.

Again, not the point. I understand why people oppose parts of the bill, and I tend to agree with them on many of those fronts.

However, if you'll stop with the personal ridiculousness for just a moment, you will see that my thread resolved around the nature of the dissent, and the way it is manifesting. I am, frankly, frustrated that there ARE really good arguments to be made, but people are simply not making them. That's the larger issue, and I ask that you come off your little soapbox for long enough to realize that.

As far as the OP not being able to connect the relevance in the bill being a single-payer program, let me help you out. The bait you swallowed, hook, line and sinker was calling this plan health care reform. If you would actually read it before you project whats in it...

<...>

I appeal to the OP to remove the blinders...

And, if you continue with comments such as this, I'm going to report the shit out of your posts, and campaign heavily to have your abrasive ass removed from the Politics board.

You're obviously bright and well informed. Now, start acting like it, and pay attention to what people are ACTUALLY saying. Thanks.

Edited by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

Share on other sites
I appeal to you to stop with the personal comments, and remember that my point was about much more than a single memo. This is not some phenomenon which I personally made up. It's happening everywhere, and all major outlets are talking about how rabid things have become.

Further, in your post above, you have attributed a LOT of thoughts and positions to me which I simply do not hold or believe. If you wish to ask me my opinion on a matter, then please do so. However, I implore you to cease and desist making up for yourself how I feel about various things, and filling in gaps with your own preconceptions. I don't know you, which also means you don't know me. Keep that in mind, friend.

Fair enough.

This isn't about left and right. It's about the quality of discourse in our nation (or lack thereof) and the way we seem to be throwing gladiators to the lions instead of intellectually doing what's best for our collective futures.

In order to be objective you have to include both sides of the story, you only included one side in order to prop up your opinion. You made it about the left and right, I included the other side of the story for balance.

I ask you again, who is hiring who, effectively reducing the the quality of discourse in your opinion?

Share on other sites

navigator,

Two wrongs make a right?

We have people lying about their political affiliations, claiming they are non-partisan when they actually worked on Republican campaigns. We have members of PACs (who are organizing the "protests") showing up to town hall meetings claiming to be your average Joe. These PACs are spreading lies about Obama wanting to murder your grandma. We have death threats against Democratic Congressmen.

But that's all okay because the Democrats are doing some shady stuff at town halls too?

Share on other sites
navigator,

Two wrongs make a right?

We have people lying about their political affiliations, claiming they are non-partisan when they actually worked on Republican campaigns. We have members of PACs (who are organizing the "protests") showing up to town hall meetings claiming to be your average Joe. These PACs are spreading lies about Obama wanting to murder your grandma. We have death threats against Democratic Congressmen.

But that's all okay because the Democrats are doing some shady stuff at town halls too?

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, can you show me where the opposers of this health care bill are hiring people to advance their opinion of it?

Here is another one from those in favor of the bill...

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2009/08/obama-paying-15-hour-to-support-health.html

Group Paying $15 dollars an hour to support health care plan. So a "mob" isn't a mob when you're being paid? Where the media? Is this not astroturfing? This ad is being plastered on Craigslist across the country. Now is our chance to make health care work. America’s health care system is broken. Health care costs are spiraling out of control, throwing families, businesses and government into financial crisis. Families are worried their health coverage won’t be there when they need it. Our country can’t afford to wait for health reform that keeps costs down and protects consumers. We can’t wait for affordable, dependable health care. We’re fighting for health care that will protect families’ financial health, lay out a clear path for all Americans to afford health care, and improve patient safety and quality care. You can work for change this summer. Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn$4000-$6000 this summer. To apply for a job, visit our website—http://www.JobsThatMatter.org—or call Chris at [213-251-8630.] This listing can also be found on craigslist. I can think of no better way of reducing quality political discourse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Of course two wrongs don't make a right, can you show me where the opposers of this health care bill are hiring people to advance their opinion of it? Wow, did you just comma splice the statement "of course two wrongs don't make a right" with a challenge for me to find PACs on the right in opposition of the healthcare bill. Why? Would that somehow vindicate liberal pro-healthcare PACs in your eyes (thus two wrongs making a right)? I think you're missing the bigger picture... Here is another one from those in favor of the bill... This listing can also be found on craigslist. I can think of no better way of reducing quality political discourse. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of Political Action Committees? Yes, people actually pay money (on both sides of the table) to advance political causes. An example of an exclusively anti-healthcare conservative PAC is Patients United Now They are a subgroup of the larger conservative PAC Americans for Propsperity. Some other PACs channeling money into opposing healthcare (and in turn helping to organize the town hall disruptions) are FreedomWorks, American Majority, and The Sam Adams Society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Navigator, you have an alternative idea to health care reform? If this bill is so horrible and disasterous, how come people are resorting to these tactics. I hear a lot "That won't work" but no why it won't work except for that the government magically can't do healthcare properly, with no real reason other than that they are government. On top of that there is NO alternative presented besides..."Free market!" It's not an argument. So how again is this method to opposing the bill presented which I doubt anyone has a great hold on to begin with will benefit form this course of action? What's so efficient by doing this. Forget parties, two sides, one object presented from one side created to make a better system. What works better proper communications or facts? or political tactics that have nothing to do with it? It's cool you presented the side of left and it's mistakes but beyond that....You still have a war of disinformation to handle. That's the essence of this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wow, did you just comma splice the statement "of course two wrongs don't make a right" with a challenge for me to find PACs on the right in opposition of the healthcare bill. Why? Would that somehow vindicate liberal pro-healthcare PACs in your eyes (thus two wrongs making a right)? I think you're missing the bigger picture... Are you unfamiliar with the concept of Political Action Committees? Yes, people actually pay money (on both sides of the table) to advance political causes. An example of an exclusively anti-healthcare conservative PAC is Patients United Now They are a subgroup of the larger conservative PAC Americans for Propsperity. Some other PACs channeling money into opposing healthcare (and in turn helping to organize the town hall disruptions) are FreedomWorks, American Majority, and The Sam Adams Society. Ah, now we see some objectivity! It would be interesting to know how many of those PAC members, that attended the town halls, were either paid to or would directly benefit from opposing the health care bill. I provided evidence of both on behalf of the ones in favor of the plan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites It would be interesting to know how many of those PAC members, that attended the town halls, were either paid to or would directly benefit from opposing the health care bill. Then use google and try to find out. That question is also not relevant to the intent of the discussion in this thread. Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Then use google and try to find out. That question is also not relevant to the intent of the discussion in this thread. Thanks. Sure it is. It provides evidence as to motivation, which goes directly to the merits of the intentions of those who attended the town halls. Your thread title is "Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics" I have already shown who was using theatrics and tantrums, its pretty clear when you look at who went to the hospital and who went to jail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites I have already shown who was using theatrics and tantrums Actually, you didn't. iNow certainly did in the OP. Try again. Harder, this time? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Actually, you didn't. iNow certainly did in the OP. Try again. Harder, this time? You wouldn't consider the union members locking the main entry doors, to prevent the opposers from having their voice heard, while letting in other union members through the side "handicap" entrance, theatrics? What about Carnahans female employee arrested for assault after having a temper tantrum, knocking an opposers cell phone out of his hands breaking it? Or the black conservative who was beaten and sent to the hospital for peacefully handing out leaflets that opposed the health care bill? The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links. Instead, I would encourage some of you to step out of the left wing bubble thats makes this political forum appear severely lacking in objectivity, which I thought was a central principle to all scientists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OK FINE! ACCEPTED! NOTED! WRITTEN DOWN! MARKED IN STONE. What does that have to do with the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal? That's the issue! there is no argument at all to against the bill. The fact that there are left extremist defending the bill with stupid tactic doesn't address that when the opposition to the bill has NO argument and reverts to tactics such as described by the OP doesn't change the fact that this tactic is NOTcreating stimulation or progressive dialogue over said issue i,e, health care reform. Edited by GutZ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links. You're making the claim. You have the burden of proof. I don't play go fish, sorry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OK FINE! ACCEPTED! NOTED! WRITTEN DOWN! MARKED IN STONE. What does that have to do with the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal? That's the issue! there is no argument at all to against the bill. The fact that there are left extremist defending the bill with stupid tactic doesn't address that when the opposition to the bill has NO argument and reverts to tactics such as described by the OP doesn't change the fact that this tactic is creating stimulation or progressive dialogue over said issue i,e, health care reform. The OP accused the opponents of being the ones preventing the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal, no? That is simply not true. It should be pretty obvious which side was using tactics that prevent quality political discourse. There are several arguements by the opposition. I will stick to the ones that have merit based on Obamas own words. The opposition doesn't want a bill shoved down their throat, by the same people who exempted themselves from it. They also don't like the fact that Obama is going back on his word in regards to reading it. During his campaign he said he wanted Americans to have access to the same health care the politicians get. He also said he would invite senators and congress to the white house to read the bill. Those are very powerful positions that motivated people to vote for him. He was also critical of Bush for signing legislation that he never read. His hypocrasy on these issues is drawing alot of concern and rightly so! The main arguement I have heard is the bill takes away the voters right to choose which health care plan best suites his/her needs and puts it in the governments hands as a single payer system. Obama has been all over the map on this issue, the only correlation is based on who his audience is at that time. Also, if you have read the bill I doubt you failed to notice the number of times the word Acorn was used when the bill discussed who would head up the committees responsible for determing who was worthy to get what health care and how much. If the bill was presented as an option, I doubt their would be so much opposition, but its not. Its a single payer, socialized health plan that leaves the government solely in charge of your health care, unless you are a union member or a politician. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You're making the claim. You have the burden of proof. I don't play go fish, sorry. I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search. Does your ideology take priority over objectivity? Doesn't lend much credibilty to your scientific views on this forum. Edited by navigator Consecutive posts merged. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites You wouldn't consider the union members locking the main entry doors, to prevent the opposers from having their voice heard, while letting in other union members through the side "handicap" entrance, theatrics? What about Carnahans female employee arrested for assault after having a temper tantrum, knocking an opposers cell phone out of his hands breaking it? Or the black conservative who was beaten and sent to the hospital for peacefully handing out leaflets that opposed the health care bill? The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links. Instead, I would encourage some of you to step out of the left wing bubble thats makes this political forum appear severely lacking in objectivity, which I thought was a central principle to all scientists. Yes so some supporters of the bill are doing things to subvert a honest discussion of the bill, but so are some opponents of the current bill. The use of these tactics by either side is unjustified and disgraceful. We as citizens need to rise above this partisan strife and have a civilized discussion on the issue currently at hand. As for the Newt Gingrich interview, it was interesting to see a report actually stand up to a politician and call him out on his logical fallacies. Although it is completely reasonable to consider what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote and what this might means about President Obama is should not be confused with a discussion on the current healthcare reform bill. Also before you stereotype every member of this board I would suggest you read a few threads. Although many members tend to be more liberal not all of the board is and all members tend to be open mind and willing to listen to a logical argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Yes so some supporters of the bill are doing things to subvert a honest discussion of the bill, but so are some opponents of the current bill. The use of these tactics by either side is unjustified and disgraceful. We as citizens need to rise above this partisan strife and have a civilized discussion on the issue currently at hand. I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion. I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given. The town halls used to be a forum for the voters to share their concerns to their reps. so the reps could go to Washington and accurately convey the concerns of his constituents. The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be. The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so! Also before you stereotype every member of this board I would suggest you read a few threads. Although many members tend to be more liberal not all of the board is and all members tend to be open mind and willing to listen to a logical argument. Thats why I said some of you. My apologies if I offended anybody, that was not my intention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion. Incredulity is not a valid form of argument. Further, your comment implies that you did not actually read the OP. I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given. I have, as well, but I have also seen other things which are more about theatrics than about merit. The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be. This is a baseless assertion. You are again using the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, with zero evidence in support of your position. I am sure there are a handful of meetings where this could serve as an accurate description, but you have stated "town halls lately" in an all inclusive way. You either need to be more precise with your language so as to avoid miscommunication, or you need to stop making claims which are plainly false. My hope is that you will actually choose to do both. The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so! Perhaps they should also be willing to listen. This is supposed to be about dialog, not who can shout the loudest. As an interesting aside, you've helped evidence exactly the issue to which I was trying to call attention in this thread. Thanks for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Navigator, you have an alternative idea to health care reform? The Health Care Freedom Plan • Protects the right of Americans to keep their employer-based plan without having to pay additional taxes on those benefits. • Provides Americans without employer-based coverage with vouchers of$2000 for individuals and $5000 for families to purchase health insurance. The premium for the average private policy sold in the individual market in 2007 was$1,896 for an individual and \$4,392 for a family (Source: eHealthInsurance)

• Allows Americans with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to use their HSA funds to pay for insurance premiums, encouraging employers to contribute to their employees’ HSAs.

• Creates a nationwide market for health insurance by allowing individuals to purchase health insurance plans in any state.

• Provides block grants to states to develop innovative models that ensure affordable health insurance coverage for Americans with pre-existing health conditions.

• Reduces predatory and frivolous malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals.

• Assures that every health care consumer has access to price information prior to treatment so they can make informed decisions about their care.

• Repeals financial bailouts (TARP) to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.

Share on other sites
I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion. I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given.

The town halls used to be a forum for the voters to share their concerns to their reps. so the reps could go to Washington and accurately convey the concerns of his constituents. The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be.

The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so!

A honest and civilized discussion is one were citizens vocalize their opinions in a orderly way, and in turn listen respectfully to the opinions of others regardless if they agree with the other person's opinions or not. Yelling and screaming has no part in a civilized debate, as it does nothing but destroy the discussion. Simply making your point louder does not make it more convincing.

There are many examples of opponents of the healthcare reform subverting a honest and civilized discussion. For example when the crowd in Philadelphia refused to allow Senator Arlen Specter to finish his statements they were subverting the discussion. Had the crowd allowed Senator Specter finish his remarks and then had they individually voiced their dissatisfaction there would have been no problem and they would have voiced their opinions to their senator.

I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search.

Then it should be easy for you to find the supporting evidence. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertions, whether it is science, law, or a political forum.

Edited by DJBruce
Misspelled the Word Quote in the Tex

Share on other sites
I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search.

Many people make unsubstantiated claims on this forum. I don't have the desire or time to Google them all.

Asking other people to research claims you make rather than defending them yourself is shifting the burden of proof.

You have the burden of proof. Own up to it, or retract your argument. Just F*cking Google It is not an acceptable answer, sorry.

Does your ideology take priority over objectivity? Doesn't lend much credibilty to your scientific views on this forum.

Can you knock off the constant ad hominems?

Edited by bascule

Share on other sites

All you have done is to take this thread further off-topic, but there's always this:

Health Insurance Consumer Protections

• No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
• No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
• No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
• No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
• No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
• No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
• Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
• Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps a mod can delete navigator's off topic comments, or at least move them to their own thread?

Share on other sites
Incredulity is not a valid form of argument. Further, your comment implies that you did not actually read the OP.

I have, as well, but I have also seen other things which are more about theatrics than about merit.

This is a baseless assertion. You are again using the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, with zero evidence in support of your position. I am sure there are a handful of meetings where this could serve as an accurate description, but you have stated "town halls lately" in an all inclusive way.

You either need to be more precise with your language so as to avoid miscommunication, or you need to stop making claims which are plainly false. My hope is that you will actually choose to do both.

I am not under the assumption that the opponents behavior has always been stellar at these town halls. But do you really think its theatrics and not true feelings? Isn't it obvious to you who has more to lose, the opponents of this health care bill or the politicians, Acorn and union members that are exempt from it? What do you expect from people who Obama basically lied to, to get their votes?

How can you accuse one side of disruptive behavior, when the accusers have been found guilty of assault to the exstent of ending up in jail for sending someone to the hospital and still claim to be objective?

Perhaps they should also be willing to listen. This is supposed to be about dialog, not who can shout the loudest.

How long do you put up with being lied to?

As an interesting aside, you've helped evidence exactly the issue to which I was trying to call attention in this thread. Thanks for that.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
All you have done is to take this thread further off-topic, but there's always this:

Health Insurance Consumer Protections

• No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
• No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
• No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
• No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
• No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
• No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
• Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
• Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps a mod can delete navigator's off topic comments, or at least move them to their own thread?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
A honest and civilized discussion is one were citizens vocalize their opinions in a orderly way, and in turn listen respectfully to the opinions of others regardless if they agree with the other person's opinions or not. Yelling and screaming has no part in a civilized debate, as it does nothing but destroy the discussion. Simply making your point louder does not make it more convincing.

I agree, but when you lie to somebody about something as important as health care, a life and death matter, can you honestly say you can't understand their frustration?

Then their rep comes to the town hall and starts regurgitating the same lie, your going to upset people. IMO their anger has merit.

There are many examples of opponents of the healthcare reform subverting a honest and civilized discussion. For example when the crowd in Philadelphia refused to allow Senator Arlen Specter to finish his statements they were subverting the discussion. Had the crowd allowed Senator Specter finish his remarks and then had they individually voiced their dissatisfaction there would have been no problem and they would have voiced their opinions to their senator.

I agree, however, people will only swallow lies for so long.

Then it should be easy for you to find the supporting evidence. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertions, whether it is science, law, or a political forum.

I understand the principle, but I am curious at what point does it become important enough for people to see for themselves, without it being handed to you? This is a life and death matter. If you choose to believe I am being dishonest, even in light of the facts I have already presented, thats your right.

Create an account

Register a new account


text:
## Monday, October 12, 2009

### Latex: file ended while scanning use of @writefile

This error is typically seen a lot while compiling latex on windows.
This can be eliminated by deleting all .aux files and recompiling
the latex code. Recompilation should begin by running "Latex" before
any other tool, this helps re-generation of the .aux files.

Ensure that after deleting the .aux file, you also remove the
error that was causing a compilation failure before re-compiling
using latex. Errors could be as simple as missing  signs for math
operators.

This also works for the following error:
Runaway argument?
! File ended while scanning use of \HyPL@Entry.

\par
l.38 \begin{document}

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much! This has been driving me crazy and deleting the aux file got rid of the problem. BTW, I'm using a Mac.

Anonymous said...

This has been driving me nuts too, and deleting the aux file allowed it to recompile. Thank you!!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much this post. I have wasted much time in finding my mistake. But solution is very effective.

Anonymous said...

Same here searched an hour for this error >.< thanks alot

Anonymous said...

thx here too!

Anonymous said...

whew, same. using a mac.

Anonymous said...

same here (texshop, mac). thanks!

Anonymous said...

like others here im using a mac but i deleted the aux file and the error remains =/

misfit said...

Did you try running latex after restarting the editor? It has worked for ppl using mac too. What is the exact error?

ikalfanis said...

i get this error and it's driving me crazy
! File ended while scanning use of \ttl@format@ii.

i did what you wrote in ur blog but it didn't work

Anonymous said...

Check you don't have a wrong \end{document}

I was doing \include{texfile} in my main file and at the end of textfile.tex there was a wrong \end{document}. I removed and all was ok.

A tip to find what is causing a problem, try commenting sections of the source until the problem disappears.

Anonymous said...

I could fix my problem within in a second! sweet. thanks!

Christian Glacet said...

Thanks, same problem on ubuntu, rm *.aux works :)

Anonymous said...

Thanks..Really saved a lot of time

Anonymous said...

thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

many thanks!

Sergey said...

great thanks!

Anonymous said...

Thanks :D It worked for me too

Anonymous said...

well holy smokes...it works...

Anonymous said...

wonderfulllll :)
thanks a lot

leigh-anne said...

Thanks so much! I couldn't figure out why copying exactly the same text into a new file and recompiling solved my problem and I'm glad there's a faster way to deal with it.

Had this problem running latex on .tex files edited in gedit on Arch Linux.

Anonymous said...

Thanks... You helped me so much!! ;)

Anonymous said...

Thanks! deleting .aux file helped immediately!

Anonymous said...

You are my sunshine!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot!! =D =D =D

Anonymous said...

Thank u very very much

Anonymous said...

Ok good!! Thanks!

Wiebke said...

Can also happen, if you run pdflatex (or sth like that) twice in parallel

Anonymous said...

This worked for me (on MAC)!!!!

otara paul said...

perfect it solved my problem big ups

Anonymous said...

thanks alot!! worked for me too! (and it was a mac)

Anonymous said...

Merci bien ca m'a aidé!! :D

Anonymous said...

Thanks a ton

Anonymous said...

Merciiiiiii ouuuufff

Anonymous said...

thank you for the help!

Anonymous said...

THaNK YOU!!!

Iv said...

Thank you very much! I've wasted close to an hour on this thing until I read your helpful message!

Anonymous said...

For five or so minutes I was freaking out at the thought that I had somehow broken my thesis. What a strange error.

(Linux, by the way, for the statistics.)

أيمن العوادي said...

Thanks a lot... ^__^

Anonymous said...

It is very very helpful. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, works perfectly fine on Ubuntu 11.10 and TexWorks Editor

File ended while scanning use of \\HAR@dcite. I m unable to resolve this

rohit said...

THANKS!!! :)

Mari said...

Oh thanks! I was getting crazy!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wen Zong said...

Great, it works. latex is really complex for new user

Anonymous said...

Thank you!

Anonymous said...

awesome man...thnx alot

Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot man!

sricheta ruj said...

Thank you soo much!!! This error had been driving me crazy until I accidentally bumped in to your page.
:)

Yapi said...

Thank you for your help. I was so frustrated, but now the error is fixed :)

misfit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Taufik MetaNaratif said...

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this useful hint!

Ashkan Kalantari said...

Thank you a lot!

misfit said...

If you find our posts informative, support us by checking out the advertisements posted by our sponsors. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Been using Latex for over 10 years and this the first time I'd run into this (that I recall). This fixed the issue. Thanks.

west said...

Ouch...thak you very, very much :)

Anonymous said...

Doesn't work for me. It also tells me weird stuff like missing } inserted \end{document} even though I haven't touched this file lately...

1010ling said...

Deleting the .aux file works. Thanks a lot.

MLG Mondo said...

that's a simple solution! thank you!

Anonymous said...

I deleted the "\location" part of the document and wrote simply as
sample\\
sample2\\
and it worked well for me

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much for this information, such a time saver!

Anonymous said...

gracias, gracias, gracias, ya me había vuelto loca con este error. me salvaste...

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much!! Really helps a lot!

format: plain


text:
# How do you factor 7x^3-4x^2+8x?

$7 {x}^{3} - 4 {x}^{2} + 8 x$
$\textcolor{w h i t e}{\text{XXXX}}$$= x \left(7 {x}^{2} - 4 x + 8\right)$


text:
# Browse results

## You are looking at 1 - 10 of 16 items for :

• Reference Work
• Epigraphy & Papyrology
• Encyclopedia
• Religion in Antiquity
• Religious Studies
• Primary Language: English
• Search level: Titles
Clear All
With Walls of Iron?
Author: Stewart Moore
In Jewish Ethnic Identity and Relations in Hellenistic Egypt, Stewart Moore investigates the foundations of common assumptions about ethnicity. To maintain one’s identity in a strange land, was it always necessary to band tightly together with one’s coethnics? Sociologists and anthropologists who study ethnicity have given us a much wider view of the possible strategies of ethnic maintenance and interaction.

The most important facet of Jewish ethnicity in Egypt which emerges from this study is the interaction over the Jewish-Egyptian boundary. Previous scholarship has assumed that this border was a Siegfried Line marked by mutual contempt. Yet Jews, Egyptians and also Greeks interacted in complicated ways in Ptolemaic Egypt, with positive relationships being at least as numerous as negative ones.
This book explores how early Christian communities constructed, developed, and asserted their identity and authority in various socio-cultural contexts in Asia Minor and Greece in the first five centuries CE. With the help of the database Inscriptiones Christianae Graecae ( ICG), special attention is given to ancient inscriptions which represent a rich and valuable source of information on the early Christians’ social and religious identity, family networks, authority structures, and place and function in society. This collection of essays by various specialists of Early Christianity, Epigraphy, and Late Antiquity, offers a broad geographical survey of the expansion and socio-cultural development of Christianity/ies in Asia Minor and Greece, and sheds new light on the religious transformation of the Later Roman Empire.
Visualisation, Data Mining, Communication
Ancient Manuscripts in Digital Culture presents an overview of the digital turn in Ancient Jewish and Christian manuscripts visualisation, data mining and communication. Edited by David Hamidović, Claire Clivaz and Sarah Bowen Savant, it gathers together the contributions of seventeen scholars involved in Biblical, Early Jewish and Christian studies. The volume attests to the spreading of digital humanities in these fields and presents fundamental analysis of the rise of visual culture as well as specific test-cases concerning ancient manuscripts. Sophisticated visualisation tools, stylometric analysis, teaching and visual data, epigraphy and visualisation belong notably to the varied overview presented in the volume.
From the Margins to the Mainstream
Volume Editors: Stephen Mitchell and Philipp Pilhofer
This volume is part of the Berlin Topoi project re-examing the early Christian history of Asia Minor, Greece and the South Balkans, and is concerned with the emergence of Christianity in Asia Minor and in Cyprus. Five essays focus on the east Anatolian provinces, including a comprehensive evaluation of early Christianity in Cappadocia, a comparative study of the Christian poetry of Gregory of Nazianzus and his anonymous epigraphic contemporaries and three essays which pay special attention to the hagiography of Cappadocia and Armenia Minor. The remaining essays include a new analysis of the role of Constantinople in episcopal elections across Asia Minor, a detailed appraisal of the archaeological evidence from Sagalassus in Pisidia, a discussion of the significance of inscriptions in Carian sanctuaries through late antiquity, and a survey of Christian inscriptions from Cyprus.
New Finds, New Prospects
Over the past 20 years, Boeotia has been the focus of intensive archaeological investigation that has resulted in some extraordinary epigraphical finds. The most spectacular discoveries are presented for the first time in this volume: dozens of inscribed sherds from the Theban shrine of Heracles; Archaic temple accounts; numerous Classical, Hellenistic and Roman epitaphs; a Plataean casualty list; a dedication by the legendary king Croesus. Other essays revisit older epigraphical finds from Aulis, Chaironeia, Lebadeia, Thisbe, and Megara, radically reassessing their chronology and political and legal implications. The integration of old and new evidence allows for a thorough reconsideration of wider historical questions, such as ethnic identities, and the emergence, rise, dissolution, and resuscitation of the famous Boeotian koinon.

Contributors include: Vassilios Aravantinos, Hans Beck, Margherita Bonanno, Claire Grenet, Yannis Kalliontzis, Denis Knoepfler, Angelos P. Matthaiou, Emily Mackil, Christel Müller, Nikolaos Papazarkadas, Isabelle Pernin, Robert Pitt, Adrian Robu, and Albert Schachter.
Studies on a Thessalian Country Shrine
Cave of the Nymphs at Pharsalus is the first book-length study of one of Greece’s most cited nymph sanctuaries. The volume includes a revised catalog, extensive new commentaries on the cave’s famous inscriptions, and a first-time investigation of the site’s topographical and archaeological layout. Also known as Alogopati or Karapla cave, the Pharsalian shrine holds a special place among ancient nymph caves as the only such site to feature an inscribed poetic chronicle of the shrine’s foundation and its founder, the mysterious nymph worshipper Pantalces. Based on years of fieldwork and archival research, Cave of the Nymphs challenges some commonly held views about the origin of this rock-cut ‘tale’ and offers a fresh perspective for understanding the Pharsalian cave in its proper historical context.
Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World
Author: Gil Renberg
Where Dreams May Come was the winner of the 2018 Charles J. Goodwin Award of Merit, awarded by the Society for Classical Studies.

In this book, Gil H. Renberg examines the ancient religious phenomenon of “incubation", the ritual of sleeping at a divinity’s sanctuary in order to obtain a prophetic or therapeutic dream. Most prominently associated with the Panhellenic healing god Asklepios, incubation was also practiced at the cult sites of numerous other divinities throughout the Greek world, but it is first known from ancient Near Eastern sources and was established in Pharaonic Egypt by the time of the Macedonian conquest; later, Christian worship came to include similar practices. Renberg’s exhaustive study represents the first attempt to collect and analyze the evidence for incubation from Sumerian to Byzantine and Merovingian times, thus making an important contribution to religious history.

This set consists of two books.
In The Impact of the Roman Empire on The Cult of Asclepius Ghislaine van der Ploeg offers an overview and analysis of how worship of the Graeco-Roman god Asclepius adapted, changed, and was disseminated under the Roman Empire. It is shown that the cult enjoyed a vibrant period of worship in the Roman era and by analysing the factors by which this religious changed happened, the impact which the Roman Empire had upon religious life is determined. Making use of epigraphic, numismatic, visual, and literary sources, van der Ploeg demonstrates the multifaceted nature of the Roman cult of Asclepius, updating current thinking about the god.
Papers in Memory of Sara B. Aleshire from the Second North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy
In Greek Epigraphy and Religion Emily Mackil and Nikolaos Papazarkadas bring together a series of papers first presented at a special session of the Second North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley 2016). That session was dedicated to the memory of Sara B. Aleshire, one of the leading Greek epigraphists of the twentieth century. The volume at hand includes a combination of previously unpublished inscriptions, overlooked epigraphical documents, and well known inscribed texts that are reexamined with fresh eyes and approaches. The relevant documents cover a wide geographical range, including Athens and Attica, the Peloponnese, Epirus, Thessaly, the Aegean islands, and Egypt. This collection ultimately explores the insights provided by epigraphical texts into the religious beliefs and practices of the ancient Greeks, but also revisits critically some entrenched doctrines in the field of Greek religion.
The Coptic Gnostic Library is the only authoritative edition of many of the Coptic writings of the Gnostics from the first centuries AD. It was originally published by Brill in fourteen hardback volumes as part of the Nag Hammadi (and Manichaean) Studies series between 1975 and 1995, under the general editorship of James M. Robinson.

The Coptic Gnostic Library contains all the texts of the Nag Hammadi codices, both in the original Coptic and in translation. Each text has its own introduction, and full indexes are provided. The Coptic Gnostic Library is the starting point for all research into ancient Gnosticism. It is the result of decades of dedicated research by the most distinguished international scholars in this field.

The Coptic Gnostic Library continues where the Dead Sea Scrolls left off. Our main sources of information for the Gnostic religion are the so-called Nag Hammadi codices, written in Coptic. These were unearthed in 1945 near the town of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. The texts literally begin where the Dead Sea Scrolls end. Their discovery is considered equally significant as the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, bringing to light a long-hidden wealth of information and insights into early Judaism and the roots of Christianity. Furthermore, these writings clearly show that the Gnostic religion was not only a force that interacted with early Christianity and Judaism in their formative periods, but also a significant religious movement in its own right.

Features and Benefits
- Online edition of the original 14 hardback Nag Hammadi Codices
- Complete and unabridged
- Facing Coptic texts and English translations, Introductions, Notes, and Indexes
- Instant and fully searchable access to the equivalent of more than 5,000 pages of print.
• Institutional outright purchase price €5,909.00$6,854.00 * * Price valid to Dec 31, 2021 • Online subscription price €706.00$819.00 *
* Price valid to Dec 31, 2021
• For further information, contact your sales manager


text:
## Slicing a pizza the mathematician way

There’s no limit to creativity. Maybe time, but it still tends to infinite. Therefore it has no limit either. What about pizzas?...

December 18, 2019 · 7 min · 1472 words · Fernando Meyer


text:
96-490 Gerald Teschl
Renormalized Oscillation Theory for Dirac Operators (36K, LaTeX2e) Oct 15, 96
Abstract , Paper (src), View paper (auto. generated ps), Index of related papers

Abstract. Oscillation theory for one-dimensional Dirac operators with separated boundary conditions is investigated. Our main theorem reads: If $\lambda_{0,1}\in \mathbb R$ and if $u,v$ solve the Dirac equation $H u= \lambda_0 u$, $H v= \lambda_1 v$ (in the weak sense) and respectively satisfy the boundary condition on the left/right, then the dimension of the spectral projection $P_{(\lambda_0, \lambda_1)}(H)$ equals the number of zeros of the Wronskian of $u$ and $v$. As an application we establish finiteness of the number of eigenvalues in essential spectral gaps of perturbed periodic Dirac operators.

Files: 96-490.tex


text:
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
129 lines (69 sloc) 3.12 KB

# Regularizers

Regularization is important, especially when we don't have a huge amount of training data. Effective regularization can often substantially improve the generalization performance of the estimated model.

In this package, all regularizers are instances of the abstract type Regularizer.

## Common Methods

Each regularizer type implements the following methods:

.. function:: value(reg, theta)

Evaluate the regularization value at theta and return the value.

.. function:: value_and_addgrad!(reg, beta, g, alpha, theta)

Compute the regularization value, and its gradient *w.r.t.* theta and add it to g in the following way:

.. math::

g \leftarrow \beta g + \alpha \nabla_\theta Reg(\theta)

.. note::

When beta is zero, the computed gradient (or its scaled version) will be written to g without using the original data in g (in this case, g need not be initialized).

.. function:: prox!(reg, r, theta, lambda)

Evaluate the proximal operator, as follows:

.. math::

r \leftarrow \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{x}
\frac{1}{2} \|x - \theta\|^2 + \lambda \cdot \mathrm{Reg}(x)

This method is needed when proximal methods are used to solve the problem.

In addition, the package also provides a set of generic wrappers to simplify some use cases.

.. function:: value_and_grad(reg, theta)

Compute and return the regularization value and its gradient *w.r.t.* theta.

This is a wrapper of value_and_addgrad!.

.. function:: prox(reg, theta[, lambda])

Evaluate the proximal operator at theta. When lambda is omitted, it is set to 1 by default.

This is a wrapper of prox!.

## Predefined Regularizers

The package provides several commonly used regularizers:

### Zero Regularizer

The zero regularizer always yields the zero value, which is mainly used to supply an regularizer argument to functions to request it (but you do not intend to impose any regularization).

reg(\theta) = 0

immutable ZeroReg <: Regularizer end

### Squared L2 Regularizer

This is one of the most widely used regularizer in practice.

reg(\theta) = \frac{c}{2} \cdot \|\theta\|_2^2.

immutable SqrL2Reg{T<:FloatingPoint} <: Regularizer
c::T
end

SqrL2Reg{T<:FloatingPoint}(c::T) = SqrL2Reg{T}(c)

### L1 Regularizer

This is often used for sparse learning.

reg(\theta) = c \cdot \|\theta\|_1

immutable L1Reg{T<:FloatingPoint} <: Regularizer
c::T
end

L1Reg{T<:FloatingPoint}(c::T) = L1Reg{T}(c)

### Elastic Regularizer

This is also known as L1/L2 regularizer, which is used in the Elastic Net formulation.

reg(\theta) = c_1 \cdot \|\theta\|_1 + \frac{c_2}{2} \|\theta\|_2^2

immutable ElasticReg{T<:FloatingPoint} <: Regularizer
c1::T
c2::T
end

ElasticReg{T<:FloatingPoint}(c1::T, c2::T) = ElasticReg{T}(c1, c2)
You can’t perform that action at this time.


text:
Equation (134) implies $\partial w/\partial y=0$, etc. Substitution of Eq. (134) into Eq. (117) yields

$Dw″″+\rho h\stackrel{¨}{w}=0$ (135)

(135)

where $w″″$ is the fourth derivative with respect to the space variable $x$. Equation ...

Get Structural Health Monitoring with Piezoelectric Wafer Active Sensors, 2nd Edition now with O’Reilly online learning.

O’Reilly members experience live online training, plus books, videos, and digital content from 200+ publishers.


text:
# Very Long Flag Validator

Tags: rev

Points: 1000 (2 solves)

Description:

Can you find the flag?

#### Initial reversing

After opening the binary in ida and adjusting the maximum size for functions to actually get a nicer decompilation, I could identify some C++ functions (it took some time to figure out that ida applied wrong lumina data and it was actually just vector::push_back and not some Variadic thingy…

Anyway, after identifying that the main struct initialized in main is 64 vectors, 64 mutexes, 64 conditional variables and 64 chars and that this struct is passed to 64 threads it was pretty clear that there will be some inter-trhead communication.

So after looking at the first thread’s function for some time I realized that it locks the lock with a certain index in the struct, then checks if there’s something in the vector and if not, it waits using the conditional variable with the same index as the lock. Then it pops a value from the vector, (by getting the start pointer, dereffing and then popping the value using again a C++ function which was a bit tricky to identify).

This value is then split into the lowest bit as well as the upper bits, the upper bits are then compared with certain values (different in each function), if the value matches, we store the lowest bit value in a local variable (which was initialized to -1 to signify no value). There are always three inputs which belong together, they are inputs into a full-adder, so we have three inputs and two outputs, the carry was pushed into the vector of the next function (in order they were started in / are stored in the binary) the upper bits were set to one of the values that function was expecting. The xor result of the three inputs was pushed into the vector of the same function, again using one of the specified upper bits for this function.

#### Parsing of the stuff (pain)

So this seems to be a dataflow machine, each function is a adding-station, and it waits for certain tagged inputs to add them. There are eight functions which belong together in the sense that the carry will go to the next function. And of these pairs of eight functions there are eight, for a total of 64 functions. At this point I assumed that it doesn’t matter in which function we are and that we just need to care about the tag of the inputs/outputs, so I spent a long time to come up with a good way to parse all the station’s inputs and outputs. In the end I came up with the following grep command: objdump --insn-width=100 -d -M intel main | grep -e ret -e cmp -e "[^x]or" -A 2 which prints all the compares and since grep is smart is prints consecutive matches as one block and then separates different blocks by a single line of --. So by counting the amount of newlines between two -- I was able to determine if it was a block where we check for the two or three input tag numbers. Then I just extracted the numbers from the compare instructions to get the inputs. Finally if there was an or instruction I assumed that this sets the upper bits of the output, there were some complications with this, as the compiler is smart and emits an or ah, 1 in cases where the tag was 256, so I had to adjust that (and spend about an hour to find a bug as one single function used dh instead of ah…).

After having parsed all of thses things it’s just a matter of putting all the initial values and rules into z3 and letting it solve for the correct input. This was easily done, as I could just copy the decompiled code from main, fix up a few bits (again because of the ah). Then I could easily parse that code to get the tags and corresponding values (wether that was a constant or one of our input bits).

#### Final script

The final script to parse all the things and solver looks like this:

from z3 import *

# objdump --insn-width=100 -d -M intel main | grep -e ret -e cmp -e "[^x]or" -A 2 > cmps

#the tags which symbolize the final value of a station
tgts = [0xec,0x16d,0x182,0x185,0x194,0x197,0x1a0,0x1a3,0x2ae,0x2cf,0x2d2,0x2e4,0x2f3,0x2ff,0x308,0x30e,0x4cd,0x4d0,0x4e5,0x4e8,0x4f7,0x4fa,0x4fd,0x503,0x57e,0x6a4,0x6b9,0x6bc,0x6cb,0x6ce,0x6d7,0x6dd,0x800,0x84e,0x863,0x866,0x869,0x86c,0x86f,0x875,0xa43,0xa46,0xa5b,0xa6d,0xa7c,0xa7f,0xa88,0xa8e,0xb6c,0xbd5,0xbff,0xc02,0xc11,0xc1d,0xc20,0xc26,0xce3,0xdb8,0xdcd,0xdd0,0xdd3,0xdd6,0xdd9,0xddf]
# order the threads are started in
bitorder = [2,28,46,4,32,5,14,40,29,43,25,0,19,35,16,63,59,7,24,22,62,30,36,56,44,42,6,11,58,47,39,34,17,31,26,41,37,3,50,53,13,27,21,49,1,12,51,20,9,52,55,18,10,15,61,8,38,45,23,54,33,60,57,48]
# the expected outputs, checked in main
expected = [1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1]

last_outs = []
last_inputs = []

# init solver & values for each tag
s = Solver()
tags = [Bool(f"tag_{i}") for i in range(3554)]

# pushes from main

bit = 0
tag = 0
inputs = [Bool(f"in[{i}]") for i in range(64)] # our input, 64 bits (aka 8 bytes == 16 hex chars)
consts = [0]*64
for i,l in enumerate(xx):
if l == "": continue
if i & 1:
idx = int(l.split("[")[1].split("]")[0])
else:
if "|" in l:
tag = eval(l.split("|")[1].split(";")[0].strip())
assert(tag & 1 == 0)
tag >>= 1
input_idx = int(l.split("[")[1].split("]")[0])
bit = inputs[input_idx]
else:
val = int(l.split("=")[1].strip()[:-1])
bit = (val & 1) == 1
tag = val >> 1
consts[tag] = bit

# the constant values
#print([1 if x else 0 for x in consts])

idx = -5
for i in x:
if "ret" in i:
idx += 1
if idx == 64:
break

fl = i.split("\n")[1]
if "or" in fl and "0x" in fl:
xx = int(fl.split(",")[-1].strip(),0)
if xx > 0x10000:
xx = xx & 0xff
if "ah" in fl or "dh" in fl:# man fuck dh
xx<<=8

assert(xx&1 == 0)
last_outs.append(xx>>1)

if (idx in [7, 15, 23, 31, 39, 47, 55, 63] and len(last_outs) == 1) or len(last_outs) == 2:
#print(last_inputs, "=>", last_outs)
xored_tgt = last_outs[-1]

if len(last_inputs) == 2:
else:
# Man fuck z3, why does it allow Xor(a,b,c) with three inputs but doesn't fucking work
# This could've been solved like 3 hours earlier but because of this fucking
# z3 thingy they were lost, rip

if xored_tgt in tgts:
print("Target found: ", idx, last_inputs, last_outs)

if len(last_outs) == 2:
ovf_tgt = last_outs[0]
#print(idx, last_inputs, last_outs)
if len(last_inputs) == 2:
else:
a, b, c = tags[last_inputs[0]], tags[last_inputs[1]], tags[last_inputs[2]]

if i.count("\n") > 6:
last_inputs = []
last_outs = []
for l in i.split("\n"):
if "cmp" in l:
last_inputs.append(int(l.split(",")[-1],0))
last_inputs = list(set(last_inputs))
#print(idx, last_inputs)

# extract the resulting bits
results = [tags[tgts[i]] for i in range(64)]

for i in range(64):