In Preparation for August

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Given that Duchess64 tends to refer to people in the third person sense when "you" unambiguously specifies the correct person anyway, Reveal Hidden Contentperhaps the motivation for Karoly's postReveal Hidden Contentwas not so much the manner that you correctly referred to Suzianne by her name, as much as you referred to the person (KellyJay) whom you were directly responding to with:

"I could not care less about what KellyJay believes or not."

If Agerg is correct here then he's sure your mis-comprehension of Karoly's post was induced only by your eagerness to lash out at people, and that in general, Agerg finds *your* reading comprehension to be more than satisfactory.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yep, I hear ya. You couldn't have known who you were talking to... but the constant third person? If everyone talked like that (do you talk like that? ) , I would be used to it, but instead it just seems to sit funny with me. Hey no biggie, just my take - as you have yours.
[edit: just read Agerg's post above and share his sentiments also in the main]

I bet you're all sweet and decent in life but in your posts you sometimes come off a bit ... 'cold' ,(I'll just keep it at 'cold', I couldn't go too much further 🙂 )

If you dont liked being referred to as "sweet" I apologize in advance, however , and it may be just me, but I reckon I'm one of the sweetest, most pacifistic people who just wants the best for everyone and relishes conversing with theists,atheists and the rest equally.
Well, as I read over my previous posts I am surprised to find this unknown smug idiot writing, who rightly deserves whatever reaction he gets.
Sometimes it's the other poster who just doesn't want to get into the spirit of the thread/post, but it's got to be me misusing words and misjudging others just as much that makes me such a pariah at times.

So when Duchess64 comes to spirituality to say hir piece, I wonder whether it's just the juxtaposition to religion you have in general (like some seem to ) or whether you have any of your own spiritual/non-spiritual ideas? - (independent of just reacting to other (theists) posts,which I admit are often ridiculous and deserve to be 'pulled up' ) .

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Somehow, in Duchess64's careful reading of Agerg's post (which implied a unique solution to the is Agerg a he, she, or it? problemReveal Hidden Content), Duchess64 managed to introduce some extraneous elements into his/her/its solution set. Nevertheless, such carelessness aside, Duchess64's solution set does seem to cover every possibility.

Perhaps Duchess64 will be grateful for the following top tip from Agerg:

Define ...

h to be the set of humans (or clever animals) capable of registering an account with RHP
h_a to be the RHP alias associated to h
r to be the set of all forum replies rendered by the RHP server
r_p to be a particular reply in r, made by some poster p
r_po to be an arbitrary observer of the reply r_p
q to be the un-tampered-with quote box associated to r_p (if it exists)

then
for all h and for all r_p in r: q in r_p => h_a in q

from which we conclude if r is caused by r_p, then any observer r_po knows r_p is replying to h_a

Note: Agerg believes he does not have the same level of disdain for Duchess64 as Duchess64 has disdain for Agerg

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Reasoning that "may" suggests doubt, but not certainty, Agerg doesn't see that
"Hence, there is no equivalence relation between them."

is justified given only
"The relation between Agerg and Duchess64 may not be symmetric."

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You're going to get a lot of that around here. To combat it would be to become Don Quixote in an industrialized windmill factory.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"In this case, 'you' does not refer only to Agerg in particular."
Touché :]

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Perhaps the person "replied & quoted" in the respondents post could be a clue... 😕

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Just to press you a tad more... [ and thanks for the clarification. Some of my suspicions have been confirmed] ... I find it awkward and challenging to type differently than I talk- privately or publicly. I found it easier to reply to posters here exactly as I would were I face to face with them.As much as my own words make me shudder at times ,(you gotta remember I live in Brisbane and I speak local, (redneck), ), it seems the most natural way to talk.

Please remember I am not advocating this, I am just bemused that anyone would talk like that in public.

Thanks for your attention

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What is wrong, is that it is rude and condescending.

You are basically the ONLY person here who does it.

The fact that it pisses people off due to being rude is on of the reasons why.

It thus seems reasonable that if your style of posting antagonises people [which it does]
where that is not your intention [giving you the benefit of the doubt] then you should change
your style of posting.

As everyone else manages to cope just fine without using third person it is evidently possible
to do so.

You can be excused for mistakenly thinking that this isn't a problem when you first started out.

However you cannot be excused for still thinking this is not a problem after many people have
pointed out that this is a problem multiple times.

Particularly given your propensity for complaining about other peoples hostility towards you.