Ontological Disproof of God

[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.