Ontological Disproof of God

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you might wanna brush up on your singlespeak first.

[negatio]

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.

No, big daddy, you are mistaken, none of these people actually knew the rule in question existed, nor did, or do, know the content of the rule. Only Kit and KevinM1 knew, and their minds are the minds of what in law is called ''reasonable men'', they sent me the text of the rule, and, it is so simple that the meaning is unmistakable.
I am going to copy and paste to your post in a  minute or so via another reply. Duane

[Losty]

LOL- yea, I definitely knew the rule was there since I have to enforce it on a regular basis. But you’re misinterpreting it.

[negatio]

Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums. Please try to be welcoming and friendly at all times, even if a member is disagreeing with you. Rather than engaging with obvious spammers and trolls, please report them to the staff and let us take care of them.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.

No, big daddy, you are mistaken, none of these people actually knew the rule in question existed, nor did, or do, know the content of the rule. Only Kit and KevinM1 knew, and their minds are the minds of what in law is called ''reasonable men'', they sent me the text of the rule, and, it is so simple that the meaning is unmistakable.
I am going to copy and paste to your post in a  minute or so via another reply. Duane

---

Whilst we are generally lenient with insulting language / rudeness in other forums, this kind of behaviour is explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum. Please welcome new members to the community in a nice manner, or refrain from welcoming them at all.

Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums. Please try to be welcoming and friendly at all times, even if a member is disagreeing with you. Rather than engaging with obvious spammers and trolls, please report them to the staff and let us take care of them.

[Losty]

big daddy

[negatio]

INTRODUCTION FORUM RULES
Whilst we are generally lenient with insulting language / rudeness in other forums, this kind of behaviour is explicitly disallowed in the Introductions forum. Please welcome new members to the community in a nice manner, or refrain from welcoming them at all.

Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums. Please try to be welcoming and friendly at all times, even if a member is disagreeing with you. Rather than engaging with obvious spammers and trolls, please report them to the staff and let us take care of them.

[Losty]

We’ve all seen the rule. No need to continue posting it over and over again

[Angrboda]

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.

No, I did not. I pointed out that even if it were treated as a rule it would not have the effect you think it does. Now you're boring the shit out of me. You're nothing but a self-important douchebag.

[negatio]

Note that this does not give you a carte blanche to act in an insulting or rude manner in other areas of the forums. Please try to be welcoming and friendly at all times, even if a member is disagreeing with you. Rather than engaging with obvious spammers and trolls, please report them to the staff and let us take care of them. Bob Kelso

I haven't seen you prevail in the least. If you change prevail to evade, side step or dodge then I'd agree.

[Bob Kelso]

No, big daddy

Yeah, the only “big daddy” here is Minnie, and we only call him that when he’s giving theists a spanking.

you are mistaken, none of these people actually knew the rule in question existed, nor did, or do, know the content of the rule. Only Kit and KevinM1 knew, and their minds are the minds of what in law is called ''reasonable men'', they sent me the text of the rule, and, it is so simple that the meaning is unmistakable.
I am going to copy and paste to your post in a  minute or so via another reply. Duane

Enjoy your short stay, I sense a banhammer descending from the skies anytime now.