Ontological Disproof of God

[Losty]

All members and all staff which participated in so radically insulting me as a newbie ought, really, to write-yourselves all up for committing crimes against your own damned fucking inefficacious law, and, collectively, throw youselves all off the forum, for Christ's sake !  Negatio.

Try reading the rules for comprehension.


 
So far, I've read one, perhaps two, rules. Both beautifully written and beautifully intended. Did any of the members know of the non-insult statute extant on this Forum ?  Clearly not ! (You are incorrect about cramming exclamation and question marks directly into the end of a sentence, that was an intentional attempt of yours to mislead me, and, it worked for a little while).
I do not particularly believe in rules, for I know there is more humane and more efficient means to men conducting themselves civilly among one another than, via rules ! Did the rule
against insulting newbies work in the instance now in question ? No. And, the reason is not that staff and members had never heard of the particular law; it is rather, because so-called law is not, in fact, an efficacy among men.  It will be interesting to see how Losty and her co-horts, (Losty has, in past, been a tremendous help to me), manage the situation into which they are now thrown, regarding their own conduct, their own misconduct, the insult statute, and insulting persons like yourself, however, in your particular case, it is not insult, it is ire !  Negatiol.

You’re still wrong about that rule. I don’t have to be nice to you just because you’re new. You could do as I suggested several times and create a thread in the Questions For Staff forum to ask for yourself but you won’t because you already know you’re wrong. At this point you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “lalala I can’t hear you!” Which is incredibly immature for someone of your age and supposed education.

[negatio]

Even if the section you quoted were a rule, it only says that members are not free to insult others without limit.  But then, that's already been pointed out in the rules on flaming, as well as the prime directive.  It's simply underscoring that there are limits on behavior, without actually setting any new limits.  What it does not do is create a new rule whereby members are required to treat new members in any way differently than other members outside the introduction forum.  Nobody has ever had carte blanche to be insulting or rude outside the introduction forum.  It only requests that people try to be welcoming and friendly at all times.  It does not say we are obligated to do so, nor that failure to do so will be punished.

One cannot differentiate until deeper study of a block of language posited as a totality under the rubric "rule(s)" which are, all, prima facie intended to be law.

You are now doing what emjay did, and, attempt to force differentiate of one part of the totality as rule, from another part thereof that you want to arbitrarily deem is not rule; when, in fact, a selfsame block of different descriptive sentences, all posited under the rubric "rule", constitutes each particular sentence within the totality a rule, per the fact that one single declarative sentence, being  part of a totality dubbed law, is rule, simply by virtue of being a part of the larger ensemble.

[Losty]

Even if the section you quoted were a rule, it only says that members are not free to insult others without limit.  But then, that's already been pointed out in the rules on flaming, as well as the prime directive.  It's simply underscoring that there are limits on behavior, without actually setting any new limits.  What it does not do is create a new rule whereby members are required to treat new members in any way differently than other members outside the introduction forum.  Nobody has ever had carte blanche to be insulting or rude outside the introduction forum.  It only requests that people try to be welcoming and friendly at all times.  It does not say we are obligated to do so, nor that failure to do so will be punished.

One cannot differentiate until deeper study of a block of language posited as a totality under the rubric "rule(s)" which are, all, prima facie intended to be law.

You are now doing what emjay did, and, attempt to force differentiate of one part of the totality as rule, from another part thereof that you want to arbitrarily deem is not rule; when, in fact, a selfsame block of different descriptive sentences, all posited under the rubric "rule", constitutes each particular sentence within the totality a rule, per the fact that one single declarative sentence, being  part of a totality dubbed law, is rule, simply by virtue of being a part of the larger ensemble.

Or you can just ask the people who wrote the rule. 🧐

[negatio]

Bullshit, I am never intentionally dishonest.

Bullshit, it is your dishonest intransigent crappy attitude that has you where you are right now.

I am completely authentic, and, that authenticity is a part of what pisses you off.  It does not matter when we exchanged private mails, we did exchange mails.

How many after I washed my hands of your authentic bullshit?

All members and all staff which participated in so radically insulting me as a newbie ought, really, to write-yourselves all up for committing crimes against your own damned fucking inefficacious law, and, collectively, throw youselves all off the forum, for Christ's sake !  Negatio.

Try reading the rules for comprehension.

---

Try reading the rules for comprehension.


 

You’re still wrong about that rule. I don’t have to be nice to you just because you’re new. You could do as I suggested several times and create a thread in the Questions For Staff forum to ask for yourself but you won’t because you already know you’re wrong. At this point you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “lalala I can’t hear you!” Which is incredibly immature for someone of your age and supposed education.

I am not actually incorrect about the rule being discussed, which it appears you hadn't heard of.  Since there is so much difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the rule, an arbitrator may have to ultimately decide.  Insulting me now is in poor taste while you are in your evening cups.  I still want to write you that essay on crakers...Negatio

[KevinM1]

Several people here - myself included - have given you actionable suggestions on how you can help yourself here.  That includes:

Writing an introduction in the Introductions subsection
Engaging with staff in the Questions For Staff subsection instead of bickering/whining with/about them
Learning to competently use the forum software (including formatting posts so they're readable (an empty line between paragraphs))
Providing some background on your ideas, or places/authors/links where one can learn it on their own without insult

You keep claiming I'm mad or angry.  I'm not.  Annoyed perhaps, but nothing more.  What I want to see is if you'll hang yourself with more refusals, weak justifications, and excuses, or if you'll do the mature thing and acknowledge the olive branch that has been repeatedly offered to you.

[Losty]

You’re still wrong about that rule. I don’t have to be nice to you just because you’re new. You could do as I suggested several times and create a thread in the Questions For Staff forum to ask for yourself but you won’t because you already know you’re wrong. At this point you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “lalala I can’t hear you!” Which is incredibly immature for someone of your age and supposed education.

I am not actually incorrect about the rule being discussed, which it appears you hadn't heard of.  Since there is so much difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the rule, an arbitrator may have to ultimately decide.  Insulting me now is in poor taste while you are in your evening cups.  I still want to write you that essay on crakers...Negatio

You are quite incorrect about the rule being discussed.

Feel free to write me an essay on crackers.

[KevinM1]

Telling a staff member they don't know a rule that they enforce....

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out.

[negatio]

Wrong. We encourage members to please try to be welcoming and friendly. We do not require it outside of the introduction forum.

In so far as a rule is a requirement you cannot viably differentiate one portion of a forum rule into two segments, one of which is rule, and the other suggestion. All the language posited under the title Forum Rules, are rules.  Rules are all either prescriptions and/or proscriptions, none are mere suggestions. The rule we are now discussing requires members not to insult newbies even outside the introductory zone, i.e., no insulting of newbies within any forum zone, such is clearly what is being said, in straightforward, simple language. I was a newbie in the philosophy zone, and, I was insulted the piss out of in the phil. zone, wherein I was a newbie.  Negatio.

[emjay]

All members and all staff which participated in so radically insulting me as a newbie ought, really, to write-yourselves all up for committing crimes against your own damned fucking inefficacious law, and, collectively, throw youselves all off the forum, for Christ's sake !  Negatio.

Try reading the rules for comprehension.


 
So far, I've read one, perhaps two, rules. Both beautifully written and beautifully intended. Did any of the members know of the non-insult statute extant on this Forum ?  Clearly not ! (You are incorrect about cramming exclamation and question marks directly into the end of a sentence, that was an intentional attempt of yours to mislead me, and, it worked for a little while).
I do not particularly believe in rules, for I know there is more humane and more efficient means to men conducting themselves civilly among one another than, via rules ! Did the rule
against insulting newbies work in the instance now in question ? No. And, the reason is not that staff and members had never heard of the particular law; it is rather, because so-called law is not, in fact, an efficacy among men.  It will be interesting to see how Losty and her co-horts, (Losty has, in past, been a tremendous help to me), manage the situation into which they are now thrown, regarding their own conduct, their own misconduct, the insult statute, and insulting persons like yourself, however, in your particular case, it is not insult, it is ire !  Negatiol.

I give up... again. Go or stay, I don't care any more. You're beyond help, so I'm not going to waste my time trying anymore. But one thing, if you stay confined to this thread with this attitude and this stupid narrative you've got going on, then I doubt anything's gonna change. Olive branches and ways out of this situation have been offered now by multiple members and staff, but you're too invested in your conspiracy theory to see it. I said before that I think you have problems understanding context, and now I'm pretty sure that's the case; I think you're reading the rules line by line too literally, and not seeing them in the wider context of the whole rules of the forum or beyond. I don't know if you have read the whole rules yet, but I fear you'd still have the same problem even if you did. But unfortunately that's something that can't be taught, so I think you're just doomed to misunderstanding and there's not much I can do about it. So on practical grounds, I give up; maybe I could help you understand every little thing, but what's the point if you're not going to meet anyone half way?

[The Grand Nudger]

Negatio is the rules, Emjay, therefore you are invalid.