Ontological Disproof of God

[brewer]

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

Narcissism at it's finest. Neggy gets to come into a forum that's been operational for years, not be a member of staff, not had a conversation about what the rule(s) mean or their application, but does get to apply his interpretation as the only correct one and then claim victimization. 

How the hell did you ever climb on that superiority horse neggy? Be careful of the height, your fall may be devastating.

[KevinM1]

I dunno... there's a certain art to whining at me about the difference in replying vs. quoting when nothing in my previous post even directly mentioned it, and instead explicitly mentioned poorly formatted paragraphs

No Kevin, that is the content of one of the private thread questions to staff; it is not meant for you, and there is another one there that I sent you, which mentions systematical misleadingness.
Negatio.

[Losty]

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.

Actually it is not posited under the title Forum Rules. Feel free to click “Rules” at the top left and see for yourself.

[Losty]

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.

I have created the special thread for private communication with staff. Of several messages containing questions, answers to which are centrally important to me, thus far, Losty has superficially replied to, not answered, two questions I posed. So, Kevin, that is a false mode/avenue of communication with staff, they are too high and mighty to respond to me; and, that reminds me, I am, given the total irresponsible absence of response from the high and mighty ones, going to post the questions I asked on the open forum, right now, upon a second reply to your post.

Moderators are not required nor encouraged to reply to inquisitions received via private message. Instead we are encouraged to refer people to the Questions For Staff Forum where they can be properly responded to in an environment that allows all staff members to view and assist in the discussion. This is much more efficient than one moderator relaying messages back and forth between a member and the staff. It makes our work easier and your results better. I never ignored a PM from you, I tried to explain to you nicely where you should look for your answers.

Edited to retract- I removed the last part of my post because I may have misread yours.

[Losty]

I have created the special thread for private communication with staff. Of several messages containing questions, answers to which are centrally important to me, thus far, Losty has superficially replied to, not answered, two questions I posed. So, Kevin, that is a false mode/avenue of communication with staff, they are too high and mighty to respond to me; and, that reminds me, I am, given the total irresponsible absence of response from the high and mighty ones, going to post the questions I asked on the open forum, right now, upon a second reply to your post.

I am engaged in Replying. And, it seems you are continually calling Reply "Quoting"; so, one cannot really tell what on earth you are actually attempting to refer to. I thought Quoting was the earlier disaster when I was using the Quote tab, and inadvertently generating multi-quoting.  Do you guys mean Reply when you say Quoting ?  I think I am trying to learn how to properly Post Reply, not Quote!?  So when you use two terms as synonyms, and, there is really a difference between the two, you are unintentionally both confusing, and, systematically misleading me! 

---

I have created the special thread for private communication with staff. Of several messages containing questions, answers to which are centrally important to me, thus far, Losty has superficially replied to, not answered, two questions I posed. So, Kevin, that is a false mode/avenue of communication with staff, they are too high and mighty to respond to me; and, that reminds me, I am, given the total irresponsible absence of response from the high and mighty ones, going to post the questions I asked on the open forum, right now, upon a second reply to your post.

You are addressing me in what is known as double-speak, confusing me by speaking simultaneously of one thing as another. Quoting is now something I am avoiding; I am trying to learn Reply(ing). Perhaps you do not realize that speaking to me in a double-speak is confusing. I thought, according to you Losty, that I was Replying correctly, and, now I am not "Quoting" correctly?! It appears you are whipsawing me with double-speak, I am sorry, but that is what it looks like...SHOW ME WHAT IS MISSING NOW IN MY CODING, IS IT SOMETHING AT EACH END OF WHAT I AM DOING NOW? DO NOT BE SO STRINGENT HERE THAT YOU WILL NOT SIMPLY SHOW ME THE PROPER EQUATION/CODE. Is this your way of trying to teach me something?

The only problem I see right now is that you are quoting yourself and addressing me about something that someone else said that had nothing to do with me. 🧐

[Losty]

No Kevin, that is the content of one of the private thread questions to staff; it is not meant for you, and there is another one there that I sent you, which mentions systematical misleadingness.
Negatio.

The one good thing that has come from this is the word misleadingness. That’s a great fucking word.

---

Oops. I didn’t mean to make so many posts in a row. Sorry about that!

[KevinM1]

And, just so no one can say I didn't try...

The BBCode tag 'Quote', which has the following syntax:

Code:

[quote]This is some text you want to quote[/quote]

Merely puts a box around some text, like so:

This is some text you want to quote

The 'Reply' and 'Quote' buttons help automate it.  'Reply' simply quotes the entire post the button was attached to, and adds that person's name and a link to the original post.  'Quote' puts that post's text in a buffer.  You can click 'Quote' on multiple posts.  At the bottom of the Quick Reply window at the bottom of each page, you'll see a thing saying 'you can quote them now or discard them'.  Those are actually textual buttons... clicking on 'quote them now' will put all of the things you quoted in the message you want to write.  Clicking on 'discard them' will, well, discard all of them.  In both cases the buffer will be empty.

Of course, these are things anyone can figure out on their own after three weeks of trial and error....

[Bob Kelso]

Sir, you are not going to successfully goad/insult me into a communication.  The tone of the attempted communication is so sordid that I can see future communication would be unpleasant for me, because you clearly appear to be another member who cannot do otherwise that entail insult within an interchange.  Your constant insulting train discourages and obviates future interpersonal dialogue.  You will be condescending and unkind... Negatio.

Dude, let me be perfectly clear. Your cold reception is one of your own making. You have done nothing but posit overly verbose crap, and refuse to rephrase it or condense it before expanding upon it (as an actual conversation would allow).

Not only that, but you continue to shit on our doorstep with your bitching, and narcissistic whining about the rules that you clearly don’t understand. People went out of their way to explain them, and instead of taking their word, both that of long standing members and actual goddamn moderators, for how things are done... you continue to preen and argue like a nut job.

If you don’t like it, and you clearly don’t what with the tens of pages long whining, then do yourself a favor and change your shit attitude. You will find that people wil actually engage with you if you do.

Fucking hell.

[emjay]

Unfortunately some people just parse the world this way, as if everything is a legal contract and with no ability to read between the lines or infer anything from context, and it creates an impasse... that appears as 'doublespeak'... with those... the majority... that see it differently. An unbridgable gap which requires heavy translation into essentially legalese of pretty much everything that the context-seeing group takes for granted. I feel bad about it but I don't have the patience to do that forever after, especially since the lack of context-awareness means unlikeliness to learn to generalise going forward and learn rules of thumb. So all I can foresee is endless long-winded explanations being given for every little thing, but which don't result in any significant increase in understanding or ability to take the initiative going forward.

[negatio]

The one good thing that has come from this is the word misleadingness. That’s a great fucking word.

---

Oops. I didn’t mean to make so many posts in a row. Sorry about that!

Kevin, it is "systematial misleadingness", which is a phrase coined by a British thinker named Gilbert Ryle circa 1932.  He points out that we humans can be misled by the subject predicate structure of our speech/writing. I can say: The uicorn is green., wherein ''The unicorn" is a systematically misleading the-phrase, whereby a reader can be misled because a ''the'' stands in juxtaposition with unicorn, rendering The unicorn... analogous to The tree...It is fun stuff, and, I combined-up thus: ...systematically misleading double-speak...Double speak is a cool concept; look it up on the net and please let me know, I need to refresh on it and do not have time right now...Negatio