Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

It is so totally outrageous for you to say that I don't know what paragraphs are, that it is just plain nonsense !

I express discrete, sole, solitary, individual fragments of thought in single stand-alone/stand-apart sentences.

Not all sentences fit into a paragraph, for it has noting to combine with in the ensemble that is a paragraph, which

paragraph articulates a larger series of thoughts with similar intension.


To say, or, to imply that I absolutely must at all times employ paragraphs, or, you are obliged to kick-me-to-the-

curb, amounts to one auteur exhibiting the strange belief that he has a right to dictate, to another auteur, his 

writing style ! ?  In this instance it is you and some nebulous robot installed within the fabric of this site, taken 

together, that are absolutely demanding I only write paragraphs;---which appears to be a brand new species of 

absolutism, which won't work with me, I don't care how high a Deity the program functioning at the core of the 

forum is deemed !

Reference Azimov's first absolute rule for robots, i.e., that no robot shall harm a human; and, a robot is harming me  
when, in the name of how it is programmed, it makes absurd demands which obviate my freedom to maintain what

 I, alone, consider to be the correct ordering of my writing.  Sincerely, Negatio. P. S.,The robot mediating this edit is  
absolutely forcing the above sentences together, without a space in between, I have failed three times to cure 

the foibled structure.  Like I have said before, it is pulling teeth to continually struggle to get the program to      

permit me Latin; discrete wording that is not all jammed together, and, now it is a tiresome struggle to 

accomplish double spacing.

You're right, I don't have the right to dictate how you write. But neither do you have the right to dictate what other people have to read.

I was just trying to help you express yourself as you intend rather than erroneously because of some technical misunderstanding or other. Gradually you've improved on that score... starting to get the hang of quoting, not longer dragging around old posts... so well done for that.

And regarding paragraphs I was trying to do the same thing; make sure they were showing how you intended them to show, rather than in error because of some technical misunderstanding.

If this post I'm replying to is exactly what you wanted to display, then there's nothing more for me to say on that score because my role as 'tech support' would be complete. Is it? Ie are you intending for your paragraphs to cut off mid-sentence sometimes? Is this part of your idiosyncratic, 'fragmentary' style, to have half sentences alone on a line to themselves? Or is this the result of yet another technical misunderstanding? That's all I'm trying to get to the bottom of and help you with here.

But if it is exactly what you intended to write, then as you said, I don't have any right to dictate that you should write otherwise. But neither do I have any obligation to dredge through trying to make sense of it, just as is the case with other posters on this site who insist on writing weird and illegible posts. They're just part of the furniture, but I have no interest whatsoever in reading what they have to say nor any obligation to.

Members are so predominantly, radically, paranoid, regaring this "trolling/troll" nonsensical-supersition-barrier-to-communicating-with-newbies, that they fail to see an authentic rustic struggling with the hyper-complexities of, actually, for the very first time ever, in an otherwise totally computer-friendly world,   instructing a computer, via BB code, to address another human being on an Atheist/Agnostic Forum, which address, requires employment of a prima facie dense computer code requisite to responding to others on the forum:

[quote = 'author'] (which was repeatedly proffered to Negatio in an effort to assist him in attaining-to proper conduct within this forum), was, systematically misleading. Thus, kindly member intention to explicate code, in fact, obfuscated a desired understanding, on the part of the newbie,of  the process of correctly, respectfully, replying to members of the forum----- i.e., putting the single cap around 'author', unintentionally misled a struggling newbie.  Ignorant; confused; unintentionally misled; and, unable to readily comprehend what the structure of the BB code was made to achieve, the newbie became a laughingstock; an assured ''troll'', who was, for certain, surreptitiously trolling members; and, at the same time, the newbie, tendent to overthink things like Texas hold-em, could not readily penetrate an overwhelming unfamiliarity that is computer code. The forum's Reply/Quote platform is an efficient and effiacious torture chamber for newbies... Negatio.