Ontological Disproof of God

[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.

All this constant nippicking at my person regarding something as trite as not employing one particular way of referencing, among many ways extant across the world...Why don\t you undertake a possibly productive attack against my writing, and get beyond the inane pleasure you appear to take from repeatedly asserting yourself right, while I am wrong...perhaps I am indeed wrong, from a certain nerdish perspective, okay, so what !? Demonstrate me wrong regarding something really significantly serious concerning my written position(s). Is it that you can nor more do that than I can do computer code ?! If the best that everyone can do is constantly harp on some trite little purportedly correct site syntax, it strikes me as so absolutely shallow a consideration that it is nauseating. Wow, I entered a strange new forum world and, persons there can do little more that peck and peck regarding some idiosyncratic referencing formality I've never heard of; how important can that possibly be to me !? Not very. Find something regarding my writing that might be important to peck at; however, you cannot even begin to follow what I am writing about, ( all you appear to possibly do is wine on and on, repeatedly demanding simplicity and, complaining regarding a mere meaningless absence of a certain nerd-exactness in computer code procedure), much less set forth a rational polemic against a position which you cannot fathom. Oh, yes, it is absolutely my fault that forum members cannot follow my position...I am intentionally obfuscating; merely showing off my vocabulary; purposely lacking simplicity...and, if I don't leap at my chance to conduct myself in absolute accord with the basic ilk of computer law transpiring within this site, I am to be discarded as a wrong, disobedient, peon ! Wow, I'm crushed; defeated, wow, big deal, I'll have to seek therapy to get over the trauma...

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote