Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

Weird enough when you refer to yourself in the 3rd person.  When you address yourself I just glaze over.

You seem more motivated to protect your argument behind layers of protective language than to risk having it criticized directly.  

You bore me.

risk having it criticized directly

---

Weird enough when you refer to yourself in the 3rd person.  When you address yourself I just glaze over.

You seem more motivated to protect your argument behind layers of protective language than to risk having it criticized directly.  

You bore me.

[quote = Whateverist
risk having it criticized directly.  

Hell, lets risk having ''it'', whatever bit of ''it'' which you wish to attempt to put at jeopardy, ''criticized directly''; shit, go for it. 

If my thread, and myself, are so boring, why do you follow the thread ?  Is it for the sake of continually calling me horrid unfounded names ?  What did we always say as children: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but..." Negatio.


[/quote]

[brewer]

[edit]
Duane, the real consciousness behind Negatio, now sees Negatio from a distance, Duane is not, in fact, Negatio, or, in a certain sense, Duane both is, and, is not Negatio; thus, there is the distance which accounts for the use of the third person.
Duane is literally, up to the extent that he is undergoing the kind of unhealthy schizophrenogenic pressure from others, splitting, somewhat, off, i.e., splitting-off into a slight schizo-state within the forum; so, now, all  of you who have subjected me to the hell of constant accusation of being this horrid creature you call a "troll'', have, thereby, within the forum, unintentionally created a somewhat schizophrenic Duane who refers to Negatio.  Make sense ?  Duane/Negatio.

Ah, hahahahahahahahaha. We're turning him schizo. 

What a snowflake.

[emjay]

So, I apologise; I overreacted and I was a dick.

Gee wizz, thanks.  So, if possible, can I have your positive back, please ? !  Am I still mistakenly thinking that I have to, every time, in order to properly respond to you right this instant have to write ? Negatio.

Sure, I'll get on that in a minute... I shouldn't have removed it. But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

[negatio]

Gee wizz, thanks.  So, if possible, can I have your positive back, please ? !  Am I still mistakenly thinking that I have to, every time, in order to properly respond to you right this instant have to write   ? Negatio.

Sure, I'll get on that in a minute... I shouldn't have removed it. But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

I resolved the question, which I now see from the above that the question did not go through in a complete form.
I have now see that I was being whipsawed by two different positions which have been expressed here, i.e., that no BB code is necessary to reply to members; and, that there is BB code which is required.  Losty informed me that I had done three pages correctly, and, thus, I simply went back to doing it the way which I find works.

I just spent a tremendous effort writing Abaddon a response to his morning  post on my thread, and, after finishing it up in Preview Post, when I pressed Post Reply, it vanished into thin air; this happened before, and, then, after a bit, the writing did appear correctly on the thread.  Losing all that writing is devastating.  I am going to have to start voice recording all my serious replies so that they are not lost by the treacherous Preview Post process. Negatio.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sure, I'll get on that in a minute... I shouldn't have removed it. But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

I resolved the question, which I now see from the above that the question did not go through in a complete form.

No, you didn't. You simply knee-jerked to your next excuse.

I have now see that I was being whipsawed by two different positions which have been expressed here, i.e., that no BB code is necessary to reply to members; and, that there is BB code which is required.

No, BBcode is not required to reply effectively here. It is entirely optional. The site default is to NOT require BBcode. Do not pretend that it is.

Losty informed me that I had done three pages correctly, and, thus, I simply went back to doing it the way which I find works.

And ignored everything that was painfully described to you in such excruciating detail that even a mollusc could figure it out.

I just spent a tremendous effort writing Abaddon a response to his morning  post on my thread, and, after finishing it up in Preview Post, when I pressed Post Reply, it vanished into thin air;

The expression you seek is "fat vapour". Not buying this garbage.

this happened before, and, then, after a bit, the writing did appear correctly on the thread.

Oooo, latency. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Losing all that writing is devastating.

No, it really isn't.

I am going to have to start voice recording all my serious replies so that they are not lost by the treacherous Preview Post process. Negatio.

The "preview" function is entirely benign and simple. Nobody but you seems to have this issue. Ask the obvious question. Is it the forum or is it PEBCAK?

Must I google that for you also? Or can you manage that much on your lonesome?

Fuggit, here you go.

Now, it so happens that I have a lifelong friend of the age of 77. So I took the time to show her your posts. As a lifelong housewife and mother with no education even she said and I quote "This guy is just taking the piss. Why are you giving him the attention he clearly wants?". Frankly, I had no evidential leg upon which to stand.

How do you respond?

[emjay]

Sure, I'll get on that in a minute... I shouldn't have removed it. But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

But I don't understand your second question, can you rephrase?

I resolved the question, which I now see from the above that the question did not go through in a complete form.
I have now see that I was being whipsawed by two different positions which have been expressed here, i.e., that no BB code is necessary to reply to members; and, that there is BB code which is required.  Losty informed me that I had done three pages correctly, and, thus, I simply went back to doing it the way which I find works.

Ah, okay. Basically it would help to understand the BBCode but it's not in theory necessary. The reason is because the normal mode of editing/replying to posts... the mode without the BBCode... is just a 'front end' or 'GUI (graphical user interface)' for the BBCode. In other words, whenever you do something in the graphical mode of editing, all it's really doing is adding the required BBCode behind the scenes, which you can see by looking at it in 'source mode'. For instance if you want make some text bold like this, you can do it in the normal, graphical mode by selecting the text you want to bold, then clicking the Bold button... just as you would in say Microsoft Word... and doing that will make the text graphically appear bold in the editor... but doing that is really just a user friendly way of adding the required BBCode tags to the underlying source of the post, and which you can see by looking at 'source mode'. So you have two ways of doing the same thing; either graphically or not, but both result in BBCode being added to the source of your post... the only difference is whether it is being added automatically by the GUI, or you are adding it manually in source mode.

I just spent a tremendous effort writing Abaddon a response to his morning  post on my thread, and, after finishing it up in Preview Post, when I pressed Post Reply, it vanished into thin air; this happened before, and, then, after a bit, the writing did appear correctly on the thread.  Losing all that writing is devastating.  I am going to have to start voice recording all my serious replies so that they are not lost by the treacherous Preview Post process. Negatio.

That's not a problem of preview per se; ie I think the same thing would happen if you directly posted the same content without previewing. Basically, whether previewing or posting, the program must first successfully parse the source of your post. If it cannot do that, for instance because there are broken or incorrectly written tags, then it is likely to fail to post correctly in one way or another, as you're seeing.

I understand how frustrating it is to lose large parts of your post. It's happened to me before as well, so if I'm writing a long and complex post I usually make a backup in a text editor. And to reduce the likelihood of it happening, I prefer to use source mode only, which doesn't automatically attempt to add or correct your tags. But obviously that's not going to work for you if you're not comfortable with using BBCode directly.

Anyway, IMO the most likely reason you're losing large parts of your posts is due to both the program failing to correctly parse your posts due to malformed tags... since you're messing with them so much... as well as the program attempting to correct those broken tags and failing at that as well, by for instance, adding a closing quote tag because it can't find a valid one to match the opening tag, or vice versa.

[Whateverist]

Hell, lets risk having ''it'', whatever bit of ''it'' which you wish to attempt to put at jeopardy, ''criticized directly''; shit, go for it. 

If my thread, and myself, are so boring, why do you follow the thread ?  Is it for the sake of continually calling me horrid unfounded names ?  What did we always say as children: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but..."

I wasn't trying to give you a complex. Your initial wall of words was very off putting. I have no idea whether you are a troll or not but here is one final opportunity for you to respond like a normal person. But there are conditions.

1 - I will not call you Negatio, Duane. It is pretentious.

2 - If you're interested in having a straight forward conversation, reply to this post only. Do not string together 15 other posts you wish to respond to in the same reply.

3 - Do not look to showcase your amazing vocabulary. Instead consider if you have anything worth saying and, if so, say it as simply as possible.

Yours truly,

Mark

[Abaddon_ire]

I understand how frustrating it is to lose large parts of your post. It's happened to me before as well, so if I'm writing a long and complex post I usually make a backup in a text editor. And to reduce the likelihood of it happening, I prefer to use source mode only, which doesn't automatically attempt to add or correct your tags. But obviously that's not going to work for you if you're not comfortable with using BBCode directly.

Sorry, MJ but you are wasting your time. Our proponent has no interest in any form of learning of anything. Our proponent thinks he/she/it has a killer ontological disproof of god.

What that might actually be? Who knows. Negatio cannot express it in any meaningful way that anyone could possibly understand, and quite clearly has no interest in communicating said idea.

Cast back to the OP. Straight out of the box, everyone said that is such a mess that nobody would waste the time to pick it apart. It is entirely possible that there is a coherent point buried somewhere in that wall of insane rambling, sure. But who the hell has the leisure to unpick that particular Gordian Knot? Not me.

Straight out of the box I was confrontational, sure. Then I rolled that back and now I regret doing so. OP still has not grokked simple quote tags. Nobody is that idiotic. It can be nothing but intentional. Add to that the example cited of the OP happily posting elsewhere and what do we all conclude?

I leave that to the reader.

ETA: We are all atheist or agnostic in this thread. To whom is OP addressing his weird argument?

[Whateverist]

I understand how frustrating it is to lose large parts of your post. It's happened to me before as well, so if I'm writing a long and complex post I usually make a backup in a text editor. And to reduce the likelihood of it happening, I prefer to use source mode only, which doesn't automatically attempt to add or correct your tags. But obviously that's not going to work for you if you're not comfortable with using BBCode directly.

Sorry, MJ but you are wasting your time. Our proponent has no interest in any form of learning of anything. Our proponent thinks he/she/it has a killer ontological disproof of god.

What that might actually be? Who knows. Negatio cannot express it in any meaningful way that anyone could possibly understand, and quite clearly has no interest in communicating said idea.

Cast back to the OP. Straight out of the box, everyone said that is such a mess that nobody would waste the time to pick it apart. It is entirely possible that there is a coherent point buried somewhere in that wall of insane rambling, sure. But who the hell has the leisure to unpick that particular Gordian Knot? Not me.

Straight out of the box I was confrontational, sure. Then I rolled that back and now I regret doing so. OP still has not grokked simple quote tags. Nobody is that idiotic. It can be nothing but intentional. Add to that the example cited of the OP happily posting elsewhere and what do we all conclude?

I leave that to the reader.

ETA: We are all atheist or agnostic in this thread. To whom is OP addressing his weird argument?

My theory is he was either hoping to impress us or troll us.  Not sure which.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sorry, MJ but you are wasting your time. Our proponent has no interest in any form of learning of anything. Our proponent thinks he/she/it has a killer ontological disproof of god.

What that might actually be? Who knows. Negatio cannot express it in any meaningful way that anyone could possibly understand, and quite clearly has no interest in communicating said idea.

Cast back to the OP. Straight out of the box, everyone said that is such a mess that nobody would waste the time to pick it apart. It is entirely possible that there is a coherent point buried somewhere in that wall of insane rambling, sure. But who the hell has the leisure to unpick that particular Gordian Knot? Not me.

Straight out of the box I was confrontational, sure. Then I rolled that back and now I regret doing so. OP still has not grokked simple quote tags. Nobody is that idiotic. It can be nothing but intentional. Add to that the example cited of the OP happily posting elsewhere and what do we all conclude?

I leave that to the reader.

ETA: We are all atheist or agnostic in this thread. To whom is OP addressing his weird argument?

My theory is he was either hoping to impress us or troll us.  Not sure which.

Could be both. They are not mutually exclusive. All I can tell you for certain is that I invested not a little time but no more. BS is BS no matter the source.