Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105
  1. #91

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    Nope. No essay from me. I choose to not be verbose for it's own sake. Everyone here has there own notions and are free to display it topically. To address it in such an abstract manner is outside the scope of these forums save Debate the Issues. IF you really want to beat this into the ground then I suggest you simply take it there.

    Mark47n out.
    Debate the Issues is precisely where my OP is posted! Look closely.

    Quote Quoting darwinrules
    View Post
    I bought the book (link) you published in 2016 - for anyone else who's willing to part with $2.99. (I'm sorry, I meant "treatise" as you've clarified in the description.) I am genuinely curious - what do you hope to gain or achieve by regurgitating your pleonasm in such an oddly combative way? You've jumped from forum to forum for at least the last four years; each time you've been met with similar feedback.

    Do you really want to engage people in substantive discussion? If so, you might find more success if you throw the thesaurus away and try a different approach - one that's perhaps a little less.... verbose.

    Do you just enjoy writing in your own peculiar style, maybe using the almost half a decade's worth of negative feedback to fuel your writing fire?

    I am genuinely curious. You seem rather intelligent, and you're obviously in the "debate the issues" sub-forum.... have you considered taking a different, more productive, approach to debate?
    Wow, I absolutely do not recall doing that pubication! No matter how I present the position I am obligated to set forward, others incessantly posit an elsewhere where I should be! Which strikes me as so futile and absurd that it is totally incredible. As you can see, the treatise is now paired-down to a very brief minimal presentation, so I have, in a real sense, somewhat simplified and reduced wordage. No one is willing to allow me to be me, and, all prefer that I be elsewhere in some sphere which they imagine to be the proper and ideal place for me to exist, while, all the while, I cannot be this other which everyone insists I be!
    I am so totally inundated with insult and abuse here on this horrid law site that I am completely deviated off of my course, which is discussion of the peaceful theoretical destruction of the fundamental presupposition entertained by law/jurisprudence; most members here are responding in such radically horrid, stupid and barbaric a manner that one cannot possibly maintain one's civility among these ignorant hateful destructive savages. I sincerely appreciate your kind and civil manner. I keep posting and posting my thought expecting to perhaps encounter a civil and informed person or persons with whom I can have a productive and civilized interchange/dialectic, concerning what I deem to be a very viable and significant critique of the notion of law per se. Thank you Sir.Wow, I absolutely do not recall doing that pubication! No matter how I present the position I am obligated to set forward, others incessantly posit an elsewhere where I should be! Which strikes me as so futile and absurd that it is totally incredible. As you can see, the treatise is now paired-down to a very brief minimal presentation, so I have, in a real sense, somewhat simplified and reduced wordage. No one is willing to allow me to be me, and, all prefer that I be elsewhere in some sphere which they imagine to be the proper and ideal place for me to exist, while, all the while, I cannot be this other which everyone insists I be!
    I am so totally inundated with insult and abuse here on this horrid law site that I am completely deviated off of my course, which is discussion of the peaceful theoretical destruction of the fundamental presupposition entertained by law/jurisprudence; most members here are responding in such radically horrid, stupid and barbaric a manner that one cannot possibly maintain one's civility among these ignorant hateful destructive savages. I sincerely appreciate your kind and civil manner. I keep posting and posting my thought expecting to perhaps encounter a civil and informed person or persons with whom I can have a productive and civilized interchange/dialectic, concerning what I deem to be a very viable and significant critique of the notion of law per se. Thank you Sir.
    P.S.; I do not use a thesaurus! I own my vocabulary and it simply upsurges spontaneously. The OP is now as paired-down as it can currently be, and, I am not writing for dummies; anyone genuinely concerned with fathoming my original thought, must rise to the task via study, and, not cry like little sissy girls, bemoaning their inability to instantly comprehend an original theoretical destruction of law.

    P.S.; I do not use a thesaurus! I own my vocabulary and it simply upsurges spontaneously. The OP is now as paired-down as it can currently be, and, I am not writing for dummies; anyone genuinely concerned with fathoming my original thought, must rise to the task via study, and, not cry like little sissy girls, bemoaning their inability to instantly comprehend an original destruction of law.

  2. #92

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    I think you might find a better, potentially more receptive, environment over at the philosophy subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/). Personally, I'm simply uninterested in engaging in debate with you about your thesis because the topic doesn't interest me enough to justify the cycles necessary to parse through your posts. I bet you'll find that people are more willing to engage with you if you dial the verbosity back from an 11 to maybe a 5 or 6. That said, this is an open forum, and you're clearly free to hang around and continue with your current approach. But surely you are smart enough to realize that no one here wishes to engage with you, at least not in the manner that you want.

    Please pay attention to the substance of some of the feedback you've received. There are some extremely intelligent people in this forum; none of them want to talk with you. Try, if you can, to think on that for a little while, and ask yourself why that might be happening. You remind me of myself, when I was much younger. I had to learn over time that clear and concise communication the only way to get people to engage. To be honest, a lot of the time I just wanted to hear myself talk -- I thought I was the smartest guy in the room. The smartest people, I learned, spent less time talking and more tim

    Best of luck to you sir.

  3. #93

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting darwinrules
    View Post
    I think you might find a better, potentially more receptive, environment over at the philosophy subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/). Personally, I'm simply uninterested in engaging in debate with you about your thesis because the topic doesn't interest me enough to justify the cycles necessary to parse through your posts. I bet you'll find that people are more willing to engage with you if you dial the verbosity back from an 11 to maybe a 5 or 6. That said, this is an open forum, and you're clearly free to hang around and continue with your current approach. But surely you are smart enough to realize that no one here wishes to engage with you, at least not in the manner that you want.

    Please pay attention to the substance of some of the feedback you've received. There are some extremely intelligent people in this forum; none of them want to talk with you. Try, if you can, to think on that for a little while, and ask yourself why that might be happening. You remind me of myself, when I was much younger. I had to learn over time that clear and concise communication the only way to get people to engage. To be honest, a lot of the time I just wanted to hear myself talk -- I thought I was the smartest guy in the room. The smartest people, I learned, spent less time talking and more tim

    Best of luck to you sir.
    The OP I posted is not verbose, just my responses here in the thread, the OP is completely paired-down to the bare bones. I appreciate your kind manner and your suggestions. I requested the members quit accosting me if they cannot absorb my writing, nonetheless, I am continually accosted, and, by new people, all day. Yet, there is only discussion of my person and not of the OP, because members cannot transcend ad hominem attack(s). I dislike it here and yet it is so amazing to see first-hand how horrid the jurisprudentially-oriented types are; they actually do deem themselves better than and superior to others, simply because they blindly parrot their ontologically lunintelligible law nonsense; and, their nonsense is actually unintelligible, while, the claim is continually made that my position is equally unintelligible, when, actually, it is not unintelligible per se, only difficult. Thanks a million Sir.
    These radically intelligent superior persons to whom you refer, and who do not engage me,simply do not engage because they too are incapable of doing even one sentence of viable theoretical destruction of the OP, nor would they, most probably, do more than post more fallacious argumentum ad hominem.

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I've spent some time around sailors both military and civilian. If you think what I wrote mean and bullying then you are likely neither.
    Yes, of course, simply because you assert that I am not a sailor it must be the case. Have you read that totally bawdy entirely filthy response I wrote to some faggot so long ago that I barely remember it, which daarwinrules recently dug-up somewhere and posted here?

    Ask me anything whatsoever about handling a sail boat and test my knowledge if you wish...

  4. #94

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    Have you read that totally bawdy entirely filthy response I wrote to some faggot so long ago that I barely remember it
    You know what, I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've confirmed my worst suspicions. You may barely remember that post, just as you apparently forgot that you had written and self published a book on Amazon, but your true colors have shown through.

    I do not engage with bigots.

    Good bye.

  5. #95

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    Is this him too? Posting on a bitcoin forum! Why? Why? Incredible!

    https://forum.bitcoin.com/legal/why-...le-t75355.html
    RJR;
    You are so unbelievably exceedingly obsessed with and mesmerized by the state of affairs occasioned by my appearance upon this site, that you are, amusingly, totally engaged in uncovering every word I have ever written upon the internet, which, clearly, iindubitably indicates that you are shaken to the core by the OP, and search-out every enunciation thereof, out of your fear and trembling that my ontological rationale can, in time, prove fatal to your extant perception of law. Have fun...

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    RJR;
    You are so unbelievably exceedingly obsessed with and mesmerized by the state of affairs occasioned by my appearance upon this site, that you are totally engaged in uncovering every word I have ever written upon the internet, which, clearly, iindubitably indicates that you are shaken to the core by the OP, and search-out every enunciation thereof, out of your fear and trembling that my ontological rationale can, in time, prove fatal to your extant perception of law. Have fun...
    What is the apparent magnitude of UY Scuti?

  7. #97

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting darwinrules
    View Post
    You know what, I was really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've confirmed my worst suspicions. You may barely remember that post, just as you apparently forgot that you had written and self published a book on Amazon, but your true colors have shown through.

    I do not engage with bigots.

    Good bye.
    My true colors are that I possess a reflective comprehension of my absolute ontological freedom, in an America wherein we have enslaved ourselves under a total absolutism of ontologically unintelligible law, and, I am free to write whatever I damn well please at any given time. One naturally nauseated/repulsed by male persons who suck each others organ and prefer an anus to a vagina, do indeed constitute me bigoted regarding their horrendously aberrant being. Fine, good bye; you are the one who posted that filth here for the sake of stirring up some sort of horrible trouble...take responsibility for you own act.
    There exists no doubt regarding the viability of my OP; who the hell are you to disapprove my disgust with homosexuality and to suspect the cogency of my original post. Yes, indeed, great, forget me; destroy the OP.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Floating around in a boat, insulated from human contact, is a good place for you.

    It would be hilarious watching you interface with another person. Got any video of that?

  9. #99

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting RJR
    View Post
    What is the apparent magnitude of UY Scuti?
    Why ask me? You have the world-wide web at your fingertips. I am a universal scholar able to answer your questions, but, wise enough to see that you are playing at some retarded cruel game, malignedly directed against my person, for the sake of vainly attempting to reduce me to the selfsame ilk of joke that you are.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Floating around in a boat, insulated from human contact, is a good place for you.

    It would be hilarious watching you interface with another person. Got any video of that?
    I am a land-lubber these days, far from the sea. Flake off, fool, you are already on ignore and I will not deign to respond to your cruel nonsense again!

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: Law is Ontologically Unintelligible

    Quote Quoting determinatio
    View Post
    I am a land-lubber these days, far from the sea. Flake off, fool, you are already on ignore and I will not deign to respond to your cruel nonsense again!
    Under the wide and starry sky,
    Dig the grave and let me lie.
    Glad did I live and gladly die,
    And I laid me down with a will

    This be the verse you grave for me:
    Here he lies where he longed to be;
    Home is the sailor, home from sea,
    And the hunter home from the hill.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 LastLast
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources