Do not discuss list (DND) is blank

Hey, everyone is fair game, at least at this very second, because the DND ("do not discuss these essay paper writing services") list isn't currently showing any companies. I just went to check out the list and the page is still there but there isn't a list. Technically we can discuss any company we wish until that changes without breaking any rules, so if there's anything you really want to ask or say, go for it. Of course it's probably just something that needs to be fixed, so make sure the list isn't back up before posting a business name.

Does that essayfraud site even exist anymore?

Does anyone know what's up with the DND list? Is it blank or are the names concealed?

Would kinda defeat the purpose to conceal them, wouldn't it? Little hard to "not discuss someone", if we don't even know who the "someones" are!

I know :) Was hoping that it was empty and wanted to be sure :)

I guess any company may add / remove their domain at any time now. Just read the instructions :)

That would almost be a second-grade burn if it made sense.

Even though it was a long time ago, someone raised a good question about turnitin when they asked if a company's submitting a paper to turnitin would make it show up as being plagiarized. My question is, doesn't the same problem exist when students submit their own work to turnitin before turning it in?

This question has been answered numerous times on this thread, on other forums/Q&A sites, and on turnitin's site. Somewriter ought to try doing some research.

Asking someone a question can be a form or research, idiot.

By the way mods, why did you remove the majority of the little conflict here but leave the first part?

It's a really lazy form of research, especially when you cant be bothered to come back and check on the answer for weeks. And and it isn't nice to resort to name calling just because you're too petulant and not intelligent enough to come up with real arguments.

That's funny considering that you know I made several real arguments that would still be here if our little debate hadn't been deleted by the mods.

There you go with that mind reading again. Do you know how many people come here sounding exactly like you, get really pissed off because they get completely schooled, then go away again? I don't remember our previous arguments, and I sincerely doubt you "won" any of them. If you'd care to provide some details or some evidence, you might actually get somewhere.

By the way, if the mods deleted your previous threads it's because they found them pointless and/or against the terms of use. The vast majority of my posts are still here. There's something you can make real logical inferences from (well, maybe you can't, but some of us certainly could...).

It's not mind reading. You and I had a debate here last night, and I'm pretty sure that you still remember it. In fact, your "mind reading again" statement was in reference to that very debate. By the way, when exactly have you ever "schooled" me? You are so stupid it's funny.


They deleted a whole debate between the two of us, so it was not just my posts that were deleted. You continue to lie, use poor reasoning, and be utterly useless.

Oh, that one. See, when you said the mods had deleted it, I assumed you meant some debate we had that had been....well, deleted. Our "debate," if you want to call it that, was never deleted, but simply moved to a different thread. It's still very easy to find, and was even easier last night (like your mom).

You're really bad at this whole "read things on your own" concept, aren't you? I can't imagine that makes writing very easy....


No, they didn't.


I have never lied to you or to anyone else on this forum. I just know things that you're too stupid and/or lazy to figure out. I'm sure this isn't the first time you've found yourself in this position; surely you know how to deal with it by now.

This, by the way, is you getting schooled.

Only a fool would find it unreasonable that my first assumption was that those posts had been deleted, given that I returned to the same thread to find them missing. Actually, they were deleted, in that they were deleted from the original thread. The fact that copies of some of them were posted here and some elsewhere does not change the fact that they were deleted from the thread in which they were originally posted.


Yes, of course, I'm lazy and stupid because I saw the posts had been deleted from the original thread for no reason and didn't assume that one chunk of them had been stuck in this unrelated thread and the other chunk put into a new thread, completely out of context.I guess I'm not as in tune with completely irrational behavior as you are. And yes, I'm lazy and stupid because I didn't discover what happened immediately because I don't spend my time looking at all the threads here. Unlike you, my life does not center around this site. I've been coming here frequently the last couple of days because I'm currently involved in this debate with you, but I don't post here all the time like you do. I have a life outside of this site, and I don't use this forum to find customers like you do.

F-ck off, I've got work to do!

No, you're lazy and stupid because the thread the mods created was immediately below this thread when it first happened, and either your name or my name appears as the last poster in each thread on the forum's home page, where the latest threads (like this one) are at the very top of the screen. I don't read all of the threads here, I glance at the "latest threads" page when visiting and see if anyone has said anything worth responding to.


For all your whining about me making assumptions, you're coming across like a major d--bag right now.


I use it so customers can find me, and i haven't actually taken a private customer in months--I prefer letting the companies I work for handle the customer service/administrative details. I use this site primarily for entertainment purposes, as is its intended use.


You do realize you posted twice in a row without me responding, right? The reason for that is, I had been in bed for several hours by the time you finally discovered what happened to this thread. I had "f-c-ed off" long before receiving your instruction, but it's good to see that rationality you keep going on about at work.

I don't go to the homepage to the get the forum. Since I use Firefox, as soon as I start typing "essayscam.com" I'm shown the pages in my history that contain the sequence of letters I've typed so far in either the page title or web address. Your objection is thus irrelevant.


That was a pop culture reference that you obviously didn't get. And yes, I posted twice in a row without you responding because the posts were in separate threads. And yes, I'm now posting twice in a row in the same thread, but that's because I hit "Post Message" without realizing I hadn't responded to everything that needed a response. You know me: lazy, stupid, and apparently forgetful.

You're right. My objection should have continued to be, "You're too lazy to do any sort of searching for any sort of information, which causes you to waste your own time and to jump to conclusions that could easily and quickly be proven false."

Why search elsewhere for posts that were unreasonably deleted from the original thread? Like I said, you are more in tune with irrational behavior than I am. That you think this is in any way comparable to real research suggests you haven't done much real research.

They weren't deleted, they were moved. We can quibble about what happens to digitally stored information, etc., but the posts were never gone--they were immediately placed into a new thread that did not need to be "searched" for, which is evidenced by the fact that you found it right away. You didn't "re-find" this one for awhile, but it was never deleted either.


I'm sorry, neither entering things into a search bar nor skimming a list of topics on a webpage are a part of "real" research these days? I agree that "real" research needs to go deeper most of the time, but typing things into search bars and skimming the list of returned sites/articles/whatever is pretty much how all Internet-based research begins.

Just because copies were placed elsewhere does not mean they were not deleted. To see my point, just think about the fact that they could have put up the copies in different threads as they did but without removing them from the original one. You can see that the information can be "moved" in the sense of appearing elsewhere, but that this has no bearing on whether or not the original copies were deleted.


My point, Danny G,which you seem incapable of comprehending, is that you are being unreasonable when you suggest that my not assuming that the posts had been posted elsewhere in addition to being deleted from the original thread implies anything about my research ability. It was completely pointless to delete the posts from the original thread and place them elsewhere. If it has to do with keeping posts within relevant threads, then that would explain why some were put into a brand new thread. However, it does not explain why some were taken out and put into a different thread in which they would still not be relevant.

....and apparently we're going to....


...but it's really a matter of semantics. The posts all remained viewable at all times, and so were never deleted in the sense that they were unable to be read.


Not my name--there go your research skills again. The fact that you actually can google and find information--information that is actually somewhat harder to ascertain than finding out how student's can use turnitin, though not by much--just makes your original post in this thread that much sadder, especially when it turns out you still can't really use that information effectively.

If I had anything to hide, I would have chosen a different username for this forum. Care to provide any personal information of your own, since you seem so proud of the fact that you have found some about me?


Unless the mods felt that the topic you brought up was worthy of a new thread and didn't really belong in this thread at all. Given the title of this thread--which you created--this movement of posts seems rather pointful to me.

You remain unable to understand simple explanations. The posts could have been made viewable in other threads whether or not they were deleted from the original thread. The posts could have been deleted whether or not copies were put elsewhere. This clearly shows that my claim that they were deleted from the original thread is not falsified by copies being posted elsewhere.


Since when is "deleted" defined as "unable to be read"? You can try to say that it's just a matter of semantics, but saying it's just semantics and then redefining a word does not make you right.


Whether or not that is your name, and whether or not I think it is your name, you have made a fool of yourself here by responding that it is not your name and then going on about how I have found personal information on you. If that's not your name, then what is the personal information about you that you think I have found?


Actually, I never said anything about turnitin in this thread. This thread is about the do not discuss list, which, strangely, was blank at the time I started this thread.


You seem very confused here. The posts were removed from the thread in which they originally appeared. They weren't removed from "this thread" because this isn't the thread they were in. Instead, they were removed from the original thread and some of them were placed into a brand new thread, while others were added to this unrelated thread about the do not discuss list.


Copying the posts in to this thread is pointless precisely because of the title of this thread. The title of this thread is about the topic of this thread, which is the do not discuss list. That has nothing to do with what we're discussing now. That you defend the changes that were made shows you are even stupider than I thought, for making that change was even stupider than saying anything I've seen you say here.

I understand your argument, and still disagree with your continued assertion that the posts were deleted. The fact they were moved to another thread and no longer appear here does not mean that they were deleted here, it means they were moved from here. As I said awhile ago, this is completely a matter of semantics, but you keep using the word "delete" in your explanation of why your claim that the posts were deleted--that's circular reasoning again.

In addition, in computer contexts, copy, move, and delete all have distinct meanings. Used to be, if you right-clicked on a file you would get (amongst other options) the options to copy, move, or delete the file. Copying created a copy that you could place anywhere you wanted, move would move the file fro one place to another without creating a copy, and delete would actually delete the file (technically it would move the file to the trash bin). So even if you really meant to engage in a semantic argument, you lose.


Never said or implied it did. However, according to most definitions of "delete" the posts would have been unable to be read: google.com/search?q=define:%20delete

(sorry for that pesky google thing again; I know we have some different opinions when it comes to research and being able to conduct it).


I wouldn't say "very." I assumed this was the original thread they appeared in, because I didn't really pay attention to where you posted your already-answered question in the first place. Congratulations, you win on one point: the mods moving the posts doesn't appear to make much sense.


I have never gone by Danny in my life, and regularly correct people that can't get my name right. You're an idiot for misinterpreting the idiocy of yours I pointed out, and for assuming I'm a fool rather than taking two seconds to figure it out.

The posts were NEVER deleted. There's no legit argument to the contrary. The posts were moved to a different section, readily available to all forum members.

Yes, the "delete" was featured in a discussion that was basically defining the word. That doesn't mean I used it as part of it's own definition, or that I used a claim that something was deleted as support for the claim that something was deleted. You did something similar when you said "delete would actually delete the file." Once again, your circular reasoning accusation is misguided.


I'm glad you decided to put it in these terms. I've never seen the option called "move," though it would seem to be the same as the option "cut," with which I am familiar. Copying, cutting, and deleting are all distinct, as you said. However, I disagree with your further analysis. Copying does create a copy, as you said. It also leaves the original where it is instead of removing it. Deleting removes it without making a copy. Up until this point we're probably in agreement. However, when you cut you make a copy and remove the original. Cutting is a combination of copying and deleting. Perhaps you have been confused by seeing the word "move" used for this operation and took it in the literal sense of moving, as when one picks something up and moves it elsewhere. However, it seems that what's going on is really just a combination of copying and deleting the original. If you then paste it elsewhere, you are pasting a copy, just as when you copy without deleting. To further support my claim, I'll ask you to consider what goes on when you highlight a sentence in a Word document, select "cut," and then paste it into another word document. On your analysis, the original has actually been moved from one document to another. Now consider what happens when you highlight a sentence, select "delete," and then select "undo." In this case the original is removed and then returned. I suppose one could make the argument that the original is removed and then a copy is put in it's place, but you cannot make this argument because if this is a copy rather than the original, then surely the sentence in the separate Word document would also be a copy. Now suppose you cut the sentence and paste it into a separate document, then go back to the first document and click "undo." As I said, it is debatable whether or not this is the original returning or a copy replacing it. However, if it is the original, then the sentence pasted into the other document cannot also be the original; but even if it isn't the original, it has at least as good if not better claim to being the original than the sentence in the separate document. Thus the sentence that is the result of cutting and pasting is not the original sentence.


As I pointed out, you can if you copy it before deleting and then paste a version elsewhere.


I don't know you, so why would I get your name right, or even be concerned with getting it right? Also, "You're an idiot for misinterpreting the idiocy of yours I pointed out, and for assuming I'm a fool rather than taking two seconds to figure it out," doesn't mean what you think it means. I only point this out because you attempted to do the same to me earlier. Otherwise I wouldn't care that you're not perfectly grammatically correct on a message board.


As I hope you can see from what I've said above, there is a very legit argument to the contrary. Pointing out they were "moved" is just restating claims that pheelyks has already covered, and kind of misses the point of the debate here since at this point we've moved on to the matter of whether the seemingly identical posts in other threads are really the originals that have been literally moved or are just copies of the originals which have been deleted. Claiming they were moved instead of copied and deleted in support of the view that they were moved instead of deleted is an actual case of circular reasoning. I grant that you may not have intended this as supporting the view, but rather as an expression of the view. If it was not meant as added support for what pheelyks was saying but was instead just repeating it, then you are not guilty of circular reasoning. In summary, you were either begging the question or repeating what had already been said.

If you want to see it that way, fine, but it's not the same as "moving" anyway, so your 400 word explanation is rather pointless. As I said, you can debate what happens to digital information as much as you want, but given that it's all intangible it's rather pointless to argue about what happened to specific bits, and much more valid to examine the interface effects. imagine we were talking about a back-and-forth chain of letters in a newspaper (they used to print these in certain papers, I've heard). "Deleting" would be analogous to not printing the letters anymore, such that they were unable to be read in the newspaper as they did not appear there. Copying would mean having the letters appear in their appropriate column as well as somewhere else in the paper. Cut/paste and move would be essentially the same in this physical sense, as the process has to be carried out in tow distinct steps (unlike in the digital world), and would be an editorial decision to move the letters from one area of the paper to another, ensuring they could still be read by any interested party. That's what happened here.


Desperate much?


You're right. This should have ended with, "taking two seconds to figure out your idiocy."


You seem very interested in showing me that you know my name; getting it right would show that you are capable of actually reading and understanding the information you take in. It would also demonstrate that you aren't simply an a-hole.


Actually, you've moved on because you think you've proven something worthwhile. The fact that you can past a copy and undo a delete and the rest of your page+ explanation has nothing to do with the original argument: when you said the posts were deleted, you implied (whether you meant to or not--dictionaries don't care how you use a word, but rather what the objective definition(s) is(are)--that they were gone and unreadable. You were wrong.

No, there isn't. I've been here since April 19, 2007. I've witnessed literally THOUSANDS of posts and threads get moved to the "Off-Topic" section. You've been here for five minutes. Your mumbo-jumbo doesn't move me. In fact, your statements are flat out ridiculous. What you are claiming-in short-is that the moderator engaged in a plot in which he/she "deleted" your posts, recreated them after having second thoughts about the repercussions of your disdain, and reposted them in the off-topic section. Sure. Your entire argument is void of merit because I followed the MOVED, AT-NO-TIME-DELETED threads immediately after the moderator MOVED them.

It may not have been your intention, but putting it this way changes the debate. What happened to specific bits is exactly what we were talking about, as the results relative to someone viewing the site are the same no matter which analysis is correct.


That seems like a different sense of deleting. Suppose I create a new Word document every day and write about various things in it. Now suppose that for several months the first paragraph is the same. If one day I decide to change things up and write a completely different first paragraph, then you wouldn't say that that I deleted the former first paragraph. In fact, at this point there are many tokens of that paragraph, one in each of the previous word documents over the previous several months. Choosing to not create yet another token of that type is not a form of deleting a token of that type, because it's never there to be deleted. In your example, the correct analysis is not that the letters were deleted, just that new copies of them were no longer made. To delete them such that they could no longer be read would involve going back and removing them from the old papers in which they appeared, but that wouldn't even technically be deleting. Perhaps the area of the printing press arranged for printing the letters is left unchanged for the duration of the time in which those letters will be printed, with the new letters being added underneath. At the point when the letters will no longer be printed, that area of printing press will be removed (these pieces are called "type" but I didn't want to create confusion over my previous use of "type" in the sense of the type/token distinction). I suppose you could say that these pieces are removed, but as I mentioned above, removing a physical object from something isn't the same as deleting something. For example, when I pick up a piece of garbage from the floor and throw it in the trash I do not delete it from the floor, I just remove it. "Delete" doesn't apply in this context, and using it that way would be a category mistake. There seems to be some confusion on your part concerning the changes to the printing press and what is actually appearing in the paper, which seems to be tied to some confusion concerning the type/token distinction.


This reinforces the point I made before, which is that you are being confused by thinking of "move" here in the same sense as when we talk about picking something up and moving it to another place. In the physical sense, to cut out a section of paper and paste it somewhere else involves moving it. As I pointed out above, cutting in the digital sense consists of both deleting and copying, so cut/paste would consist of copying, deleting, and pasting. In the physical sense, cut/paste does not include copying. There is no copy because the original is moved. In the digital sense, there is a copy made, which I argued for above. You have provided no response to that argument and instead tried to come up with a new argument for your point, so for now I only need refer back to the point I made earlier when it is relevant to countering your argument.


How is it desperate to point out that my response met that objection as well?


The problem I was referring to is not with how the sentence ends.


Maybe I wasn't concerned with getting it right.


You are saying the original versions are still available to be viewed. I am saying that duplicates of the originals are available to be viewed. You are saying the same tokens of those types have been placed elsewhere, while I claim that those are simply new tokens of the same types. The result is the same relative to a viewer of the site. Claiming that what is readable is the original and thus the original is still readable is simply restating your stance. I could simply respond by saying that you are wrong to say they were not deleted since they are readable because what is readable are copies. I can read a copy of something even when the original has been deleted. Your attempt to save yourself with dictionary definitions completely fails.


How long you've been here is completely irrelevant to this debate. If there is really something wrong with my argument, then point out the flaws instead of pointing out that you've been here longer. I was defeating you in arguments when I first got here, and I've been coming here for about half a year now. Also, pointing out that you've witnessed thousands of posts "moved" from one thread to another is also irrelevant. All that means is that if pheelyks is correct, then you have seen thousands of posts that were literally moved in the sense of the original version actually being placed in the new thread, and that if I am correct then you have seen thousands of posts get copied into new threads and deleted. As I've said, the result is the same relative to how we experience the website. What you've witnessed has no bearing on this discussion.


Only an idiot would interpret what I said as implying that. Once again, it is relevant that the results are the same either way, and thus any sort of repercussions would be the same either way. Furthermore, it is clear that the mods are not concerned with my disdain, and I no point have I implied otherwise. As pheelyks pointed out, cut/paste in the digital sense does not have to be a multi-step process, so my version does not differ by including some extra time in which the mod placed copies elsewhere as a distinct act. Whether the original tokens were moved or whether new tokens of the same types were placed elsewhere while the originals were simultaneously deleted, nothing you could have witnessed as a visitor to the site would have been different. This applies as well to the thousands of other instances like this you've seen. That you've seen this sort of thing happen a lot has no bearing on issue of the correct conceptual analysis of what is going on in each of those cases. You are making much weaker points in support for pheelyks's view than pheelyks himself. I've been hoping no idiots would jump in on my side and start making bad points in my defense, and now I see that has happened to my opponent in this argument. I'll probably just respond to pheelyks until you start making points in support of his view that are as strong as his own.

No, what we're talking about is the user experience. That's why I clarified this awhile ago.

Your arguments take two to three times as long to get where they're going as mine do, but I do you the courtesy of reading them in their entirety. If you can't extend the same courtesy back to me, we can stop right now.


I'm quoting this part because I didn't feel like quoting the whole paragraph just to tell you that you're babbling semantics again. I am aware that the printing press is not a perfect analog to the Internet, and that therefore there are issues with my comparison. the central argument remains:

You asserted that posts were deleted. "Deleted" as defined by objective third parties (i.e. dictionaries) means removed from view, made invisible, gotten rid of, or erased. According to these defintions, the posts were not dleted, but moved. Even if the mods had to use a "delete" function to make them disappear in one place and appear in another, the posts


, like I said a full twenty-four hours ago. Can you respond to this in less than a page?


You are grasping at straws because you very clearly lost this round. I am saying that the exact same language has been left intact and therefore anyone coming to this forum can read the conversation still, therefore it has not been deleted.


I never claimed it was the original digital information, which is what you seem so hung up on. It's the original language, in its original order (less the posts that preceded it, and that are still on view in this thread). users don't see bits, they see words; the page is technically recreated on your computer every time you visit it, so by your logic I delete the INternet every time I turn my back on it. We're in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology now, and far beyond the actual substance of this debate.


She did. Reading everything you took the time to quite would really help you out.


Oh, so you're entirely aware it's a semantic debate! Excellent! Now all you have to do is provide some objective definition of "delete" that supports your usage, and we have a real stalemate! Of course, I acknowledged the stalemate this type of argument would lead to a day ago, but if it takes you a little longer to figure these things out that's alright.


Well, you'll respond to the parts of my posts you read and feel capable of responding to. Let's try to be at least a little honest here.

This debate was never about the user experience. I've been saying that the experience is the same either way. We are arguing about whether my use of the word "delete" was appropriate.

You continue to fail to account for the fact that something can be deleted and the information in it still be available to be read elsewhere if there is a copy elsewhere. The copy can be there with or without the original being deleted.


Saying that I've clearly lost this round does not change the fact that I've provided much stronger arguments for my side than you have for yours. You are still confused about the type/token distinction. The facts about experience that you're pointing out can be perfectly well explained in my view by saying that what is readable is a distinct token of the same type. If you burn a copy of a book, that version of that book is no longer readable. But if there is a duplicate elsewhere, I can still read the same story, but I have to read it in a different book. I can read a token the same type, but it must be a distinct token of that type.


Your statement about "the original language in the original order" is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say you fail to understand the type/token distinction. In no way does my reasoning imply what you say it implies about the Internet. As you say, users don't see bits, they see words. Tokens of those posts that appear in the new threads could have appeared there whether or not the original tokens remained in the original threads, so their being readable has nothing to do with whether the originals were deleted. You seem to fail to understand this, over and over. And yes, we are in the realm of metaphysics (not so much epistemology, but to a certain extent). However, that is where this argument naturally went, which is why I'm schooling you now.


It's both a matter of semantics and a matter of metaphysics. We are arguing over the correct use of a word in a certain context, yet resolving the issue brings us to a discussion of the ontology of online posts.


I respond much more thoroughly to your posts than you do to mine, and I actually point out what's wrong with what you're saying and present cogent arguments to support my view.


Reading everything she wrote and everything I wrote in response would show you that nothing she said actually addressed the claims I was making or provided any support for either side of the debate. The post was irrelevant.

I'm not confused, I disagree that this is really an issue outside of the semantics of this debate. I've also already said this several times. READ MY POSTS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP ARGUING ABOUT THIS.


...and the users would be none the wiser. Therefore their experience hasn't changed. Therefore the posts were never deleted according to my definition (and dictionary definitions) of "delete." If you want to use another definition of delete, that's fine (even more fine if you can find an objective source for that definition), but then this becomes a semantic argument and you should SEE ABOVE.


No, this is what youare arguing about. I acknowledged a day ago that this argument was pointless, and that therefore this was not the argument I was engaging in. Again, you need to READ what I post BEFORE YOU RESPOND to it.


I think we have different definitions of reading, too. For me, it means viewing words and deriving meaning from them, or engaging in, "the cognitive process of understanding a written linguistic message." (google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define%3A%20reading). For you, it appears to be, "Ignoring large quantities of written information so I can make the points I want to make and am capable of making."

Pointing out that a definition such as "made unviewable" or anything along those lines shows that they were never deleted since they are still viewable misses the point, once again. This is because on my analysis new tokens of the same type are all that remained viewable, while the original tokens were made unviewable.

The type/token distinction goes beyond the realm of semantics. That you claim it does not shows you do not understand it. I have read your posts, and almost everything you say in support of your view is infected with your confusion about the type/token distinction. You don't seem to realize it, which explains why you keep making the mistake and keep insisting that you are not. Two quarters are distinct tokens of the same type. If there was only one quarter but then we made a copy of it, you could see the same type of thing by viewing this copy. You claim that as long as we can see a token of the same type, then the original token wasn't destroyed. That is obviously absurd.

Framing the debate the way you depict it, my stance would come out as being that all tokens of the relevant types were deleted, which is obviously not what I am claiming.

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose or not, so I'll assume you really are this dumb and I'll explain this as clearly and fully as I can:

I understand your contention that the posts that now exist are not the the same posts that were originally in a different thread--that they are different "tokens." I have never disputed this point; if that's the argument you've been having, you've been having it with yourself.

My entire argument was, and is, that the posts you made--the actual language and words--remained visible somewhere on this forum at all times. Whether or not the original digital information the made these words appear on my screen remains immaterial to this argument; most users are not concerned with the mechanism by which they are able to read and make posts, and it is ridiculous to suggest that these mechanisms are the appropriate frame for discussing what happens on these boards.

The word "delete" means remove or make invisible. The WORDS that we wrote were never removed or made invisible. They might have been duplicated using new digital information while the old digital information was destroyed--even deleted, if you'd like--but our posts (as I've now said at least three times in the exact same language) were never made unreadable, and so in this sense of the word "delete" were never deleted.

Unless this argument shifts with your next post, I'm done with this thread. Your inability or unwillingness to understand what I'm saying is getting old.

But you see, the reason that those posts are tokens of the same type is that they feature tokens of the same types of words, arranged in the same order. If you want to put it in terms of the words, then what happened was that the original tokens of those words were removed, which remains unaffected by the fact that other tokens of those same words were placed elsewhere in the same arrangement.

Consider the following:
banana
banana
Those are tokens of the same type. They are distinct tokens of the word "banana." Suppose I created the second by copying and pasting the first. You could still read the word "banana" even if I had deleted the first token of that word. I don't know what the underlying physical mechanisms are that explain how this would take place. I don't know if when I copied it there was a copy of the digital information made also, or whether both tokens as they appear on screen actually trace back to the same piece of digital information. You seem to think I am making claims based on a certain idea of what goes on there, but I don't know what goes on there and it does not affect the outcome of my argument.


I am equally frustrated by your inability or unwillingness to see that I actually am addressing the relevant points. But you have made a slight shift here, focusing on the words in the posts rather than the posts themselves. As you can see, I have followed you in this shift of focus and shown that the same distinctions play the same roles when it comes to the words. You have granted that my explanation of the posts is correct but you have objected that the posts are not what's important. You say it is the words that are important (or perhaps the statements, in a certain order). I have explained that the same reasoning I applied to the posts applies to the words. If you accept the reasoning about the posts, then you must either show how it applies differently to the words (in a certain order) or admit defeat. I feel certain you won't admit defeat and I look forward to seeing your explanation of why my reasoning about the posts is not applicable to the words.

No, you keep addressing points I have repeatedly told you I have no interest in. Yes, you could delete the first "banana" and leave the second. Yes, you can argue that this is what occurred here, and I have repeatedly said I understand and accept that this is what happened. AS FAR AS POEPLE READING THE FORUM ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME POSTS REMAINED VISBLE THE WHOLE TIME, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY THE SAME POSTS BUT RATHER DUPLICATES OF TEH ORIGINAL POSTS.

A side issue in this whole thing is the fact that you are trying to pass all of your metaphysical bulls-i* off as what you originally meant when you said the posts had been deleted, when it is very clear you thought these posts had been completely removed from the forum at first--that is, you started out saying they had been deleted according to the definition of the word I have provided, and only started spouting crap about tokens and whether or not the posts are the same posts now or different because they were moved, blah blah, blah, when you discovered you had (again) simply failed to do a bit of looking around.

This "metaphysica bulls-i*" is what's required to make you understand a simple point, which you seem to both admit and deny. I did think that there were no versions of the posts since I saw that the original versions were removed from the original thread (whether deleted or not, they were removed). I am fine with going by your definition of "delete" as "make unviewable." This does not change my stance that the original tokens were made unviewable, which is not affected by whether there were viewable copies placed elsewhere. You can see that the exact same argument holds up when we explicitly put "delete" in the terms you have.


And if I steal a book from your house and replace it with a distinct copy that is qualitatively identical, then you will never know the difference. If I burn the original copy then you will never be able to read the original copy. You can still read the same story in the other copy.

And now let's look at that statement of yours more closely, specifically the part in the middle that says


I cannot believe that after all this you actually come out and plainly state the contradiction. In case you do not know, it is impossible for a self-contradictory statement to be true.

Actually, it wasn't a straightforward contradiction. You said "THE SAME POSTS REMAINED VISBLE THE WHOLE TIME, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY THE SAME POSTS" which is saying that the visible posts were the same posts as the original posts, whether or not they were the same posts. But clearly, if they were not the same posts, then it would be contradictory to this to claim that they are same posts. Then your statement that they are the same posts whether or not they are the same posts is wrong. This statement may not be a contradiction in itself, but it is only true if the contradiction is presupposes is true.

This still does not effect the user experience in the slightest. That was and is my point, which you were and are ignoring.


I apologize. Let me restate that so you can't pretend to misunderstand:
THE SAME EXACT WORDS IN TEH SAME EXACT ORDR REMAINED VISIBLE THE WHOLE TIME, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY THE SAME POSTS. Is that better?

The fact that you have now written several pages outlining and repeating your argument without addressing this point in the slightest is beyond ridiculous.

But once again, that is not what happened. Different tokens of the same words appeared in the same order, and these new tokens were visible, despite the original tokens of the same words being deleted and thus invisible. They were not the same exact tokens of the words, despite being the same types of words in the same order. The viewers could no longer see the same tokens of those words, despite seeing qualitatively identical tokens of those words. Besides, if you want to get technical about it, my claim was that the posts had been deleted. Thus your granting that the duplicate posts are not the same is admitting that my original point was correct. The new claims that I am making which are based on the same reasoning hold up as well, as I have argued here. Once again, you can't see the same exact book once it's been completed destroyed, but you can read the same story that was in it by reading a book that is duplicate of the one that was destroyed. You are still not able to look at the exact same book, the exact same pages, or the exact same copies of the words that were in the original.


What's beyond ridiculous is the fact that I have now written several pages outlining and repeating this argument without you realizing that I have thoroughly addressed this point.

It's as simple as this. The mods could take my last post and put a copy in another thread without deleting the copy that is here. So then there are new copies of the same words appearing in the same order. By your reasoning, it is then impossible for the mods to delete the original post unless they also delete the copy, because by your reasoning the words have not been deleted as long as there is another copy available. It is clearly absurd to say that when you have two copies of something that you can't delete one without deleting them both.