RE: Ontological Disproof of God
September 13, 2018 at 6:06 pm
(This post was last modified: September 13, 2018 at 6:37 pm by negatio.)
Gone, who's gone ? I may be a real gone guy, but I am not gone from here yet, still have 50% life.
If it is incorrect to maintain no insult is permitted on the site, please boil why down into a nutshell, why ? Because the wording of Sentence three is clear to me, why is the meaning seen, by staff and members, in an entirely opposite way ? And, I am not being purposefully obtuse ! Negatio
Oh, yes, I see, the spirit of the rules trumps any literal interpretation of the rules, and, since according to staff, the spirit of the rule in question is that insult is totally acceptable upon the forum, other than within the introductory forum, the rule must mean what staff says it means by mere virtue of the fact that the staff exists.
Wow, that's a great new means of me arguing a theoretical position, I. e., I am correct because I exist. Wow, cool ! Totally bomb-proof argument !
Oh, now I see, the forum hails out of North Korea ! How could I have been so obtuse !
It is becoming clear, and this has been the case all along, that there is no reasoning with members and staff is possible, and, I can point out precisely why, in the instance of sentence three.
However, I wish, first, to hear if anyone is willing to give a nutshell explanation of why staff/members and I are at direct opposites in the interpretation of the sentence in question.
Negatio
If it is incorrect to maintain no insult is permitted on the site, please boil why down into a nutshell, why ? Because the wording of Sentence three is clear to me, why is the meaning seen, by staff and members, in an entirely opposite way ? And, I am not being purposefully obtuse ! Negatio
Oh, yes, I see, the spirit of the rules trumps any literal interpretation of the rules, and, since according to staff, the spirit of the rule in question is that insult is totally acceptable upon the forum, other than within the introductory forum, the rule must mean what staff says it means by mere virtue of the fact that the staff exists.
Wow, that's a great new means of me arguing a theoretical position, I. e., I am correct because I exist. Wow, cool ! Totally bomb-proof argument !
Oh, now I see, the forum hails out of North Korea ! How could I have been so obtuse !
It is becoming clear, and this has been the case all along, that there is no reasoning with members and staff is possible, and, I can point out precisely why, in the instance of sentence three.
However, I wish, first, to hear if anyone is willing to give a nutshell explanation of why staff/members and I are at direct opposites in the interpretation of the sentence in question.
Negatio
