Ontological Disproof of God

[Abaddon_ire]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand BBCode. The logic behind it is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of complex programming languages most of the functionalities will go over a typical user's head.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, it truly is rocket magic.

[negatio]

Dude, it's:

Code:

[quote='author']
Content to quote
[/quote]

Somehow you're putting the content to quote inside the opening quote tag, after the equals sign, where the author is supposed to go... instead of between the opening and closing quote tags.

1. You are too lazy to learn how the quote function works.

2. You are too lazy to learn how to effectively express yourself.

3. Hell, you are even too lazy to learn what paragraphs are even for.

Given that demonstrable laziness, why, exactly, should anyone here bother to wade through your intentionally obfuscated walls of text?

Since you are too lazy, uneducated, and unreflective to engage in polemic regarding my position, which describes jurisprudential illusion among the American doctors of jurisprudence who mediate our legal system, the very best you can do is set forth a fallacious and imbecilic argumentum ad hominem ungraciously directed against my person. I am on what you deem to be your forum for just about one day, and, suddenly I am quoting authors absolutely incorrectly; not writing simply enough for simpletons like you; and not cognizant of paragraphs, when, in fact, my writing methodology consists in discrete fragments. Now that I am on your forum, I either have to do things precisely your particular way, and, straighten up and fly it right, or, be subjected to senseless insults posited by the ire of a stupid-ass bully ! This is truly throwing one\s pearls before swine...Other persons on this forum were extremely polite and gracious in their attempt to convert me to what they deem to be requisite proper behavior upon this site --- deeming me to be a fool in the most kind possible way; but what can your pre-established quotation norms and, simplistic demands to reduce myself to simple simplicity, for the sake of simple simpletons, possibly mean to me, an absolutely absolute reflectively free ontological freedom, able to theoretically overthrow both Deity and Law ! ? I am not going to jump when a stupid chump like you says "frog", even if I appear, to your ignorant density, to be just so plain stupid that I am intentionally obfuscating my writing. I do not obfuscate; what you see as obfuscation is merely your ignorant inability to comprehend slight poetic complexity, readily dissolved via straightforward toughminded study on your part, which you are too infinitely lazy and inherently incapable of accomplishing in any case, foolish fool.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[emjay]

Can't tell if you're doing it on purpose now There is a preview button so you can see if it's displaying correctly before you post it.

[vulcanlogician]

Multiple people have pointed it out to him. So either it's on purpose or he just doesn't care. Either way, I think I'm done with this dude.

[SaStrike]

Can't tell if you're doing it on purpose now There is a preview button so you can see if it's displaying correctly before you post it.

He already addressed this issue, somewhere in his OP (in between the section which contains the proven formula for time travel and the section on how to train your pet dragon) he explains that it's just his special way of quoting.

[brewer]

Multiple people have pointed it out to him. So either it's on purpose or he just doesn't care. Either way, I think I'm done with this dude.

It's on purpose. He thinks it makes him intellectually elevated.

[emjay]

Looking through, it seems you're taking the quote thing personally. It's not a personal thing, it's the syntax of the site. It's not designed to be used however you're using it. It's a formatting function, not a tradition. And also, it has nothing whatsoever to do with referencing authors and sources in the academic sense. My use of the word author in my example was just to show how the quote function is supposed to be used. I guess I should have used the word 'username' to avoid that possible conflation.

[Abaddon_ire]

Since you are too lazy, uneducated, and unreflective to engage in polemic regarding my position,

Ad Hom fallacy. Grow up.

 which describes jurisprudential illusion among the American doctors of jurisprudence who mediate our legal system, the very best you can do is set forth a fallacious and imbecilic argumentum ad hominem ungraciously directed against my person.

Wrong. My claim is, and given your latest post, supported by the evidence at hand. My claims are

1. You are too lazy to learn how the quote function works.

2. You are too lazy to learn how to effectively express yourself.

3. Hell, you are even too lazy to learn what paragraphs are even for.

And you have just demonstrated that all three are true. Again.

And since you have conveniently demonstrated that I am correct, my stating so cannot by definition be an ad hom since it is demonstrably true and a matter of observable fact.

I am on what you deem to be your forum for just about one day, and, suddenly I am quoting authors absolutely incorrectly;

As has been demonstrated. As you have been told. As you have been instructed as to the solution to that issue several times. As you have totally ignored.

not writing simply enough for simpletons like  you; 

Ad hom again. Will you never learn?

and not cognizant of paragraphs, when, in fact, my writing methodology consists in discrete fragments.  Now that I am on your forum, I either have to do things precisely your particular way, and, straighten up and fly it right, or, be subjected to senseless insults posited by the ire of a stupid-ass bully !

It's called common courtesy. Clearly not one of your strong points.

This is truly throwing one\'s pearls before swine...Other persons  on this forum were extremely polite and gracious in their attempt to convert me to what they deem to be requisite proper behavior upon this site --- deeming me to be a fool  in the most kind possible way;

And you insulted them by ignoring them over and over again.

but what can your pre-established quotation norms and, simplistic demands to reduce myself to simple simplicity, for the sake of simple simpletons, po ssibly mean to me, an absolutely absolute reflectively free ontological freedom, able to theoretically overthrow both Deity and Law ! ?

You have utterly failed to do so.

  I am not going to jump when a stupid chump like you says "frog", even if I appear, to  your ignorant density, to be just so plain stupid that I am intentionally obfuscating my writing.  

3 ad homs in one. Bravo. I just love the smell of logical fallacies in the morning.

I do not obfuscate; what you see as obfuscation is merely your ignorant inability to comprehend slight poetic complexity, readily dissolved via straightforward toughminded study on your part, which you are too infinitely lazy and inherently incapable of accomplishing in any case, foolish fool.

Yay, 4 ad homs in one. Going for a record?

Once again, my claims are these. Only three claims are there. Thou shalt not have four. Neither shalt have two, except that on proceed immediately on to three.

1. You are too lazy to learn how the quote function works.

2. You are too lazy to learn how to effectively express yourself.

3. Hell, you are even too lazy to learn what paragraphs are even for.

You have, in your last post demonstrated all three claims to be correct. In your very next post you will do so again.

[emjay]

Ie if your unique quoting style means you prefer to put your answer first, that's fine. People sometimes do that, especially when replying on mobile, because it's easier... but you still need use the quote function properly.

Something quoted after reply

Or, if you want yourself quoted as well:

Some reply to the following quoted post...

Text replied to.

[negatio]

Since you are too lazy, uneducated, and unreflective to engage in polemic regarding my position,

Ad Hom fallacy. Grow up.

 which describes jurisprudential illusion among the American doctors of jurisprudence who mediate our legal system, the very best you can do is set forth a fallacious and imbecilic argumentum ad hominem ungraciously directed against my person.

Wrong. My claim is, and given your latest post, supported by the evidence at hand. My claims are

1. You are too lazy to learn how the quote function works.

2. You are too lazy to learn how to effectively express yourself.

3. Hell, you are even too lazy to learn what paragraphs are even for.

And you have just demonstrated that all three are true. Again.

And since you have conveniently demonstrated that I am correct, my stating so cannot by definition be an ad hom since it is demonstrably true and a matter of observable fact.

I am on what you deem to be your forum for just about one day, and, suddenly I am quoting authors absolutely incorrectly;

As has been demonstrated. As you have been told. As you have been instructed as to the solution to that issue several times. As you have totally ignored.

not writing simply enough for simpletons like  you; 

Ad hom again. Will you never learn?

and not cognizant of paragraphs, when, in fact, my writing methodology consists in discrete fragments.  Now that I am on your forum, I either have to do things precisely your particular way, and, straighten up and fly it right, or, be subjected to senseless insults posited by the ire of a stupid-ass bully !

It's called common courtesy. Clearly not one of your strong points.

This is truly throwing one\'s pearls before swine...Other persons  on this forum were extremely polite and gracious in their attempt to convert me to what they deem to be requisite proper behavior upon this site --- deeming me to be a fool  in the most kind possible way;

And you insulted them by ignoring them over and over again.

but what can your pre-established quotation norms and, simplistic demands to reduce myself to simple simplicity, for the sake of simple simpletons, po ssibly mean to me, an absolutely absolute reflectively free ontological freedom, able to theoretically overthrow both Deity and Law ! ?

You have utterly failed to do so.

  I am not going to jump when a stupid chump like you says "frog", even if I appear, to  your ignorant density, to be just so plain stupid that I am intentionally obfuscating my writing.  

3 ad homs in one. Bravo. I just love the smell of logical fallacies in the morning.

I do not obfuscate; what you see as obfuscation is merely your ignorant inability to comprehend slight poetic complexity, readily dissolved via straightforward toughminded study on your part, which you are too infinitely lazy and inherently incapable of accomplishing in any case, foolish fool.

Yay, 4 ad homs in one. Going for a record?

Once again, my claims are these. Only three claims are there. Thou shalt not have four. Neither shalt have two, except that on proceed immediately on to three.

1. You are too lazy to learn how the quote function works.

2. You are too lazy to learn how to effectively express yourself.

3. Hell, you are even too lazy to learn what paragraphs are even for.

You have, in your last post demonstrated all three claims to be correct. In your very next post you will do so again.

You totally pissed me off, therefore all the spicy insults.  Please get off my case and off my person and, attack my treatise; you appear to be smart...I am a total ignoramus regarding  computer code.  I find what you deem so simple to be completely unintelligible.  I cannot make out what all these equal signs signify...I do need to take the time to study what other, kinder, members have provided me with regarding your precious quotation procedure.  Consider the way I wrote the title of my essay, wherein I quoted Spinoza, there is no way that particular mode of mentioning Spinoza\s dictum could be  incorrect, and, I did not even know there was a particular way of mentioning quotes required on forums.  I could not have written the title otherwise...Thank you.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote