‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And yet neither you or any of your 8 imaginary friends can give me a single example of anything that I have ignored. What an interesting conspiracy.

People that I know have called you out for ignoring the content of posts they have addressed to you, aside from me, divegeester, Ghost of a Duke, Rajk999, Wolfgang59 and avalanchethecat: LemonJello, DeepThought, twhitehead, black beetle, Proper Knob, apathist, karoly aczel, JS357, BigDoggProblem, vistesd, Badwater, Great King Rat, googlefudge and vivify if I recall correctly. That's 20 for starters. There are probably more.

edit: sonship has called me out for ignoring the content of posts that he has addressed to me on several occasions. He may well have been right to do so.

Originally posted by @fmf
People that I know have called you out for ignoring the content of posts they have addressed to you, aside from me, divegeester, Ghost of a Duke, Rajk999, Wolfgang59 and avalanchethecat: LemonJello, DeepThought, twhitehead, black beetle, Proper Knob, apathist, karoly aczel, JS357, BigDoggProblem, vistesd, Badwater, Great King Rat, googlefudge and vivify if I r ...[text shortened]... of posts that he has addressed to me on several occasions. He may well have been right to do so.

Do you regard your claim that I have ignored posts from all these posters as evidence that I have in fact ignored the contents of their posts?

PS: How many of those 20 accounts belong to the same individual that operates the FMF and divegeester accounts?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you regard your claim that I have ignored posts from all these posters as evidence that I have in fact ignored the contents of their posts?

My claim that you have ignored posts by me countless times and that you have been admonished by all those posters for exactly the same thing in the past, and in some cases maybe multiple times, is evidence that I have not just called you a troll for non-existent reasons and that there is a basis for calling you out for your behaviour - as we have all done at various times.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How many of those 20 accounts belong to the same individual that operates the FMF and divegeester accounts?

If this is supposed to be a point you are making in defence of your behaviour in your interactions with the people listed, I'm not interested, and I'll leave other posters to make of it what they will.

Originally posted by @fmf
My claim that you have ignored posts by me countless times and that you have been admonished by all those posters for exactly the same thing in the past, and in some cases maybe multiple times, is evidence that I have not just called you a troll for non-existent reasons and that there is a basis for calling you out for your behaviour - as we have all done at various times.

These 'other posters' could all theoretically be operated by the same person that operates the FMF account or the divegeester account.

So a claim that I have ignored a post from anyone is useless unless you or they can actually reference that post that I have ignored.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
These 'other posters' could all theoretically be operated by the same person that operates the FMF account or the divegeester account.

I already took this to be your meaning and I have already responded to it in my previous post.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So a claim that I have ignored a post from anyone is useless unless you or they can actually reference that post that I have ignored.

It's OK by me if you find it "useless". Your 'defence' here is to demand that people go back and find stuff for you that they already said to you in the past and/or then repeat themselves. This is the self-same troll-gimmick you are being called out for here.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's OK by me if you find it "useless". Your 'defence' here is to demand that people go back and find stuff for you that they already said to you in the past and/or then repeat themselves. This is the self-same troll-gimmick you are being called out for here.

Yes it's all just a huge coincidence that you happen to call me out for the same thing that you have never been able to reference each time there is a question that has you on the ropes.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes it's all just a huge coincidence that you happen to call me out for the same thing that you have never been able to reference each time there is a question that has you on the ropes.

On what "ropes"?

Originally posted by @fmf
On what "ropes"?

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+ropes

Originally posted by @dj2becker
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+ropes

What "ropes" do you think you've ever had me on?

Originally posted by @fmf
What "ropes" do you think you've ever had me on?

The same ropes you are always on when you can't answer a question and make up an excuse that you have already answered it before and that you are not going to repeat yourself.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The same ropes you are always on when you can't answer a question and make up an excuse that you have already answered it before and that you are not going to repeat yourself.

I see you as holding up a "hoop" for me to jump through where I am supposed to go off looking for something for you [that you ignored the first time around] or I am supposed to sit here typing the same answers to the same questions at your behest in order to indulge you. I see you holding up that "hoop" time and time again. I am not aware of any "ropes".

Originally posted by @fmf
I see you as holding up a "hoop" for me to jump through where I am supposed to go off looking for something for you [that you ignored the first time around] or I am supposed to sit here typing the same answers to the same questions at your behest in order to indulge you. I see you holding up that "hoop" time and time again. I am not aware of any "ropes".

Conveniently for you, you can use that excuse whenever you are don't want to answer a question that would cause your argument to crumble without ever having to provide evidence for it because that would be you 'jumping through a hoop'.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Conveniently for you, you can use that excuse whenever you are don't want to answer a question that would cause your argument to crumble without ever having to provide evidence for it because that would be you 'jumping through a hoop'.

You are entitled to describe my reaction to your behaviour in any way you want. But if I have decided that I have addressed the issue you are raising, and I don't want to go over it again, what do you want me to do? Do you want me to set aside the fact that I believe I have already addressed the issue you are raising and just go over it again for you anyway? Is that what you want me to do?