(August 24, 2018 at 7:12 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 3:15 pm)negatio Wrote: <snip for brevity>

It hard to know where to start.

Sure we made progress , but you seem determined to roll that back. Disappointing.

Quite simply, you desire to present your ideas. I am willing to assist you despite the simple fact that I think that your ideas are useless.

You are at liberty to tell me to go fuck myself, but assistance freely offered and rejected is not some boomerang. It is not coming back.

Now, you can chose to pursue your passive aggressive stance if you wish. Or for the edification of others, you can choose to discuss this in thread, Or you can take it to a PM with me or anyone else.

The choice is yours.

Be warned. My patience is finite. And you are now testing those limits.

At this point, I have little hope.

Abaddon___ire
What on earth are you referring to ?  Why and What do I seem determined to roll back.  I value and need you very very much.  What is going on?  Duane

(August 24, 2018 at 7:53 pm)negatio Wrote:

(August 21, 2018 at 8:20 pm)negatio Wrote:

---

(August 24, 2018 at 7:12 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: It hard to know where to start.

Sure we made progress , but you seem determined to roll that back. Disappointing.

Quite simply, you desire to present your ideas. I am willing to assist you despite the simple fact that I think that your ideas are useless.

You are at liberty to tell me to go fuck myself, but assistance freely offered and rejected is not some boomerang. It is not coming back.

Now, you can chose to pursue your passive aggressive stance if you wish. Or for the edification of others, you can choose to discuss this in thread, Or you can take it to a PM with me or anyone else.

The choice is yours.

Be warned. My patience is finite. And you are now testing those limits.

At this point, I have little hope.

Abaddon___ire
What on earth are you referring to ?  Why and What do I seem determined to roll back.  I value and need you very very much.  What is going on?  Duane

Look at your borked quotes. Just look at them.

(August 25, 2018 at 12:51 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 7:53 pm)negatio Wrote: Abaddon___ire
What on earth are you referring to ?  Why and What do I seem determined to roll back.  I value and need you very very much.  What is going on?  Duane

Look at your borked quotes. Just look at them.

I am absolutely certain that, in the view of the forum members, who are all totally literate in computer code, that my quotes are not merely borked, they are the ravings of a total retarded maniac.  I have researched acceptable forum citation on the net to no avail. have asked a fellow member to  help me on this, to me seemingly trite and insignificant consideration, and I am sure he is not responding because he thinks it absurd, stupid, and childish, for me to ask for assistance on such a simple thing.  Given I'm  am using an absolutely normal, worldwide mode of citation, I am not actually committing such a total misdemeanor. You think if I had a paradigm example of whatever the hell it is you are demanding I employ, that I wouldn't use it, in order to keep my ass out of hot water around here ?! Members have probably sent me the requisite information multiple times, and, not possessing a reflective comprehension of computer code, I cannot even see what they have provided me with.  So, god damn it, can one over get past minutia here and undertake considerations of whether or not my position is theoretically intelligible, like Khemical is swift of mind enough to begin to engage me in

It looks like your quoting skills have improved, congrats on that. If you need any more help let me know. I usually fix people’s misquotes but I have been lazy in this thread, so sorry for that. I don’t mind sending you screenshots and detailed descriptions on quoting. I know it seems trivial but it really does matter to a lot of people that we can tell who said what. Anyway, thanks for working on it.

(August 24, 2018 at 4:38 pm)negatio Wrote: Because a magistrate could fine you, confiscate your real estate; jail you.  However the judge can only be acting on the basis of his personal project either to do so , or not; and even though the judge thinks he is determining to punish you on the basis of law, he is mistaken, because mere language of law does not, cannot, affect anyone  to do anything.  It is my responsibility to demonstrate to our extant legal system, that the doctors of jurisprudence who operate the system, are suffering the illusion that their language of law is determining them to act against persons, when, in fact, the language of law is not a determinative agent, and, it is and only, and can only be that these doctors of jurisprudence are acting, in each case, purely on the basis of their own personal project to prosecute, or convict, or punish.  The DA has the option to charge you with a crime, or not.  It is not the law written against growing weed that moves the DA to either alternative, it is his own personal consciousness, thus, we do not have a system of law, but, rather, a hierarchical caste system wherein certain persons get to pursue personal projects for the sake of punishing others, and for the sake of bringing funds into the "justice'' system. I want to expose their jurisprudential illusion.

Saying this over and over won't make it any more true than it was the first time.  As I said, your argument is incapable of dealing with a brute fact.  This is a flaw to be fixed, not a hill to die defending.

(August 25, 2018 at 3:41 am)Losty Wrote: It looks like your quoting skills have improved, congrats on that. If you need any more help let me know. I usually fix people’s misquotes but I have been lazy in this thread, so sorry for that. I don’t mind sending you screenshots and detailed descriptions on quoting. I know it seems trivial but it really does matter to a lot of people that we can tell who said what. Anyway, thanks for working on it.

Wow, thanks man.  I want to comprehend this stuff so that I can move forward with theoretical considerations.  If you could help me out that would be wonderful, but it has to be done in some special was or other, because when I look at computer code it is totally meaningless and unintelligible to me !  Thanks a million.  Negatio.

---

(August 25, 2018 at 3:44 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(August 24, 2018 at 4:38 pm)negatio Wrote: Because a magistrate could fine you, confiscate your real estate; jail you.  However the judge can only be acting on the basis of his personal project either to do so , or not; and even though the judge thinks he is determining to punish you on the basis of law, he is mistaken, because mere language of law does not, cannot, affect anyone  to do anything.  It is my responsibility to demonstrate to our extant legal system, that the doctors of jurisprudence who operate the system, are suffering the illusion that their language of law is determining them to act against persons, when, in fact, the language of law is not a determinative agent, and, it is and only, and can only be that these doctors of jurisprudence are acting, in each case, purely on the basis of their own personal project to prosecute, or convict, or punish.  The DA has the option to charge you with a crime, or not.  It is not the law written against growing weed that moves the DA to either alternative, it is his own personal consciousness, thus, we do not have a system of law, but, rather, a hierarchical caste system wherein certain persons get to pursue personal projects for the sake of punishing others, and for the sake of bringing funds into the "justice'' system. I want to expose their jurisprudential illusion.

Saying this over and over won't make it any more true than it was the first time.  As I said, your argument is incapable of dealing with a brute fact.  This is a flaw to be fixed, not a hill to die defending.

I am absolutely failing to comprehend what you mean by your contention that my position cannot deal with whatever the hell a "brute fact" is.  Have you ever seen a 'fact', a unicorn ?  I am  pretty sure I could deal with your brute.  Describe it to me dude.

Well done negatio, looks like you've got it For what it's worth I do understand how hard it is for you, or for anyone who is not computer literate, to not only do this stuff but also comprehend and retain it. It's the same with some of my family members, where it's completely understandable but still frustrating to teach because since they do not use computers enough for any rules of thumb or core principles to be learned, each time they use it it's like using it anew for the first time. But that's the same for anybody in a field they're not immersed in. Anyway, you seem to be getting immersed, so hopefully some of this stuff will stick long term and you'll start to learn context and rules of thumb to rely on. You've already done much better than some of my family... of similar age... would have done in the same space of time; who probably would not have got as far as joining (or wanting to join) a forum, let alone regularly posting on one, so well done

(August 25, 2018 at 3:55 am)negatio Wrote:

(August 25, 2018 at 3:41 am)Losty Wrote: It looks like your quoting skills have improved, congrats on that. If you need any more help let me know. I usually fix people’s misquotes but I have been lazy in this thread, so sorry for that. I don’t mind sending you screenshots and detailed descriptions on quoting. I know it seems trivial but it really does matter to a lot of people that we can tell who said what. Anyway, thanks for working on it.

Wow, thanks man.  I want to comprehend this stuff so that I can move forward with theoretical considerations.  If you could help me out that would be wonderful, but it has to be done in some special was or other, because when I look at computer code it is totally meaningless and unintelligible to me !  Thanks a million.  Negatio.

---

(August 25, 2018 at 3:44 am)Khemikal Wrote: Saying this over and over won't make it any more true than it was the first time.  As I said, your argument is incapable of dealing with a brute fact.  This is a flaw to be fixed, not a hill to die defending.

I am absolutely failing to comprehend what you mean by your contention that my position cannot deal with whatever the hell a "brute fact" is.  Have you ever seen a 'fact', a unicorn ?  I am  pretty sure I could deal with your brute.  Describe it to me dude.

Don't mean to be negative here but the quoting was only a minor issue. The major issue is the communication barrier that exists for readers reading your OP. So looks like someone is gonna need to teach you effective communication next. Well done to whoever taught you quoting.

(August 25, 2018 at 4:30 am)emjay Wrote: Well done negatio, looks like you've got it For what it's worth I do understand how hard it is for you, or for anyone who is not computer literate, to not only do this stuff but also comprehend and retain it. It's the same with some of my family members, where it's completely understandable but still frustrating to teach because since they do not use computers enough for any rules of thumb or core principles to be learned, each time they use it it's like using it anew for the first time. But that's the same for anybody in a field they're not immersed in. Anyway, you seem to be getting immersed, so hopefully some of this stuff will stick long term and you'll start to learn context and rules of thumb to rely on. You've already done much better than some of my family... of similar age... would have done in the same space of time; who probably would not have got as far as joining (or wanting to join) a forum, let alone regularly posting on one, so well done

Yes, emjay, thank you !  I was thinking about you and I am really impressed with the facts that you are massively computer code literate and kind and energetic enough to write extensive explanation of =.
Further very impressive is, for a person who has never set foot in a college, you speak like a PhD physiologist regarding the function of cerebrocellular structures and brain neurochemical processes which theoretically underlie consciousness !  Damn.

(August 25, 2018 at 5:07 am)SaStrike Wrote:

(August 25, 2018 at 3:55 am)negatio Wrote: Wow, thanks man.  I want to comprehend this stuff so that I can move forward with theoretical considerations.  If you could help me out that would be wonderful, but it has to be done in some special was or other, because when I look at computer code it is totally meaningless and unintelligible to me !  Thanks a million.  Negatio.

---

I am absolutely failing to comprehend what you mean by your contention that my position cannot deal with whatever the hell a "brute fact" is.  Have you ever seen a 'fact', a unicorn ?  I am  pretty sure I could deal with your brute.  Describe it to me dude.

Don't mean to be negative here but the quoting was only a minor issue. The major issue is the communication barrier that exists for readers reading your OP. So looks like someone is gonna need to teach you effective communication next. Well done to whoever taught you quoting.

Thank you SaStrike.  I taught myself, finally, what you guys call quoting/replying, accidentally.  I was told by a member to click Reply and to find the bottom of the page below all the posts.  I did, and, when I got there my figure/ground perception did not see the bottom of the page in the way the member thought I would...where is the top of a tree...then, days later, when it sank in a bit, I tried again. I saw this thin little almost indistinguishable bottom margin, clicked there, a cursor appeared, and then I knew.
The OP is intelligible language, and there is no "communication barrier" standing between it and members. It a simple function of mistakenly submitting existential phenomenological language to a series of persons with no foundation in that language; precisely alike my situation within the forum, there is no communication barrier between me and the forum, there is only my lack of the foundation in computer language whereby I am not comprehending basic functions within the forum.  
It is a radical insult to say that someone needs to teach me effective communication !  I am a radically effective communicator, I just mistakenly presented a revolutionary ontological disproof of Deity, predicated upon nothing, to a forum without training in existential ontology. No worries SaStrike. A total rewrite of Part I of the OP now resides on page 19 of my thread as #181, which I wish I had known how to double space on this site, such a simple thing, and yet so unattainable for an ordinary rustic,who happens to appear here in the midst of a series of people quick to posit argumentum ad hominem argument and,presume themselves to be supermen,who merely need condescend to my marginal level, and heal me of the unfortunate communicativedystrophy which I have somehow developed along the way...Negatio. P.S. Could this site be just a tad user unfriendly for newbies !?