Perhaps his questions regarding your job are leading somewhere. There are differences in maritime law for powered vessels and sailing vessels. Given that you want to have a conversation, you need to hold up your end of the bargain, which you aren't doing. You just fling insults, reply in unnecessarily dense language to convey simple points and reply to questions by stating the same premise and questions followed by another insult.
The one of the marks of an intelligent person is being able to convey ideas to others in language that they are able to understand. When I go to the doctor they don't communicate with me in the language they may use amongst themselves. When I communicate with my customers I don't do so using the terms that I would use amongst my fellow process and automation technicians and engineers. Not only does it make me come off as being a sanctimonious prick I'm also not conveying information in a usable manner to those that need to understand it.
When you communicate sailing technique do you take an hour to convey the basics of tacking or do you draw a picture and take a few moments to explain the basics and then demonstrate? Do you employ the listen/see/do method of teaching or do you just talk at students all day? It's tough, teaching. I used to teach AC Theory and it's hard to simplify some of those concepts so that an apprentice can get to understand the concept and then build outward but I certainly don't start by discussing phasors, vectors, the components of impedance or turboencabulators and marzelvanes.
At the end of the day, if you want to have a productive conversation here you need to be able to converse without sounding like a numpty.
I realized this morning that you have been playing me for the fool, asking me to explain life, the universe, and everything , and, that I am kindhearted enough to have done so. You are merely another deviate, dishonest, dishonorable, inhuman, lying jurisprudentially-oriented nitwit, who unhesitatingly defecates upon human beings for laughs; nauseating anti-human misconduct of which you are proud.
I have already explained more than once, i.e., when the objective is to demonstrate the ontological unintelligibility of language of law, one is under the necessity to employ language precisely pertinent to that task, and, that language is tough to follow; and, I cannot write a version for every person incapable of comprehending the polemic which I am presenting. In this instance the reader has to rise to the challenge of understanding a position which, undertaking the very profound task of speaking the unintelligibility of law as we now conceive it, cannot viably speak in language other than the language of existential ontology, and in the language of the modus operandi of the origin of human action. The OP cannot be dumbed down. I have tried and tried to dumb it down. Do you think you are the first to complain about it!? I am not exactly stupid, and, I see that I cannot but proceed via the toughminded language of human existential ontology, in the quest to throw light on the ontological unintelligibility of law. Your response exhibits that you think you surely know precisely far far better than I, regarding how a critique of the notion of law per se ought be penned; and, like I said, then, you must be in possession of that ideal essay, and should publish it here for everyone's edification!.
I'm a professional writer. The first rule of writing is keep it clear and simple.
I'll leave you with this, then goodbye. I have met and conversed with people over my life who could make you look like you have the brain of an Isotelus.
Every site I have ever posted on is populated by precisely the same ilk of persons as yourself, i.e, persons entirely incapable of comprehending the OP who can only do horrid hateful insult (except for some of the Christians) and, argumentum ad hominem. I have cultured my sapientality to a level which indeed the majority of persons have not and cannot achieve, and, I am in possession of an inborn radically high intelligent quotient, i.e, I am essentially a Deity per being in possession of a transcendently masterful sapientality, able to demonstrate, in writing, that neither Jehovah nor Christ were Deity; so yes, indeed I do consider myself superior to most persons simply because I have, by infinite study and constant writing, become a superior intelligence. Defeat my OP chump, or, get off my case; it is impossible for you, and, your great legally minded associates, taken together, to defeat my thought. I came to this site, as I do all sites, with a beautifully reasoned script grounded in radically efficient twentieth century existential instruments of thought, and, all I encounter is abysmally horrid and ignorant abuse and insult, and, as a participant in that abuse and insult you, nonetheless, pretend to be above me, yea, sure; you have a lot of class, all of it low...it is per your misconduct and the ongoing misconduct of most others who have responded that I, unfortunately write this horrid portrait of you and the others...
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?
Is this him too? Posting on a bitcoin forum! Why? Why? Incredible!
"I write radically beautifully, intelligibly, fantastically, superlatively. This is not the only forum this piece is posted upon, and others, on existentialist forums, have informed me my writing is intelligible. You simply are not intellectually instrumented, via having studied Spinoza, Heidegger and Sartre, to readily comprehend the language of the negation, the language of the originative mode whereby human action transpires. Nor do you follow/comprehend extensive thoughts. It is a terrible thing, because you blame me for your lacks, failings; instead of taking full responsibility for yourself, and admitting that you have neither the education, nor the reflection, to read a philosophy of nihilation. The male physiology is incapable of absorbing spermatozoa, as is not the case with the female. Spermatozoa fatally vetoes and dissolves the homosexual's somatic integrity. Your brain matter has been dissolved by corrosive ejaculate. I will not be insulted by a cum-soaked-old-cock-sucker who, cries like a little girl, the moment she encounters some hard, stiff, thinking"