(September 5, 2018 at 1:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yeah, fifty pages of trying to understand how to format a reply? No one is this obtuse. Not even me.
I concede that I am quite well versed in the programming arts, and I do preferentially respond in source code mode. But that is a mere preference. In this very post, I am not in source code. I am simply typing directly into the UI.
I know that there is rampant dishonesty going on. Sure, in thread and via PM I tried to help the hopeless, but that has ceased. Those bridges are permanently burned.
Just row back and take a look at the mess that the OP is. Post #1 if you will. It is such a comprehensive mess that I and many others attempted to salvage it. Purely on the basis that there might be some notion worth considering contained therein. OP then proceeded to fight tooth and nail for his OP. Nobody argued his point because nobody could make head nor tail of it. OP continued to insist that if he was incomprehensible, it was all our fault, not his.
This is outrageous arrogance and given the efforts of many here to explain simple presentation, well, Were it an employee of mine, it would be a former employee in short order.
50 pages in? Page count is the goal of the troll.
So why is it that we have not all addressed the OP?
Simple. Nobody can make head nor tail of it and neg doesn't want to explain it. Neg is happier arguing pedantics than presenting an actual discussion.
The Kicker? Neg has threatened to re-write post#1 many times, but has assiduously avoided doing so, ever. And further, everyone in this thread is already a self declared agnostic or atheist. Surely he is not so nuts as to convince an atheist to become more of an atheist? Right? Wrong. Add to that the simple fact that the ontological proof of god OR disproof of god is utterly useless anyway and what are we left with?
Vapour.
