Do not discuss list (DND) is blank

You can say this isn't a semantic argument if you want, but you know exactly what I'm saying and refuse to acknowledge it simply to be a smug assh*le. Whether the words are the same words or different tokens of the same type is irrelevant as far as meaning and comprehension is concerned, just like two quarters are interchangeable in terms of their actual function.

The same exact meanings were conveyed in the new tokens of the posts that were created, therefore users were able to receive the same exact impact form both the original and the new tokens. I'm sure you'll find another layer to start splitting apart, and I'm sure you're quite pleased with yourself. All of this is only sadder because its not something I never disagreed with you about in the first place--it simply makes no practical difference whatsoever.


Really? Where have you addressed the fact that no user would have experienced the moving f posts as a deletion instead of a movement?

I have said multiple times that the viewable outcome is the same no matter which analysis is correct. I've said multiple times that the same information can be read in the copies. I have thoroughly argued that being able to read the same information in the new copies has no bearing on whether the original versions were deleted.

Once again, I never said there was any difference concerning anything along the lines of "meaning and comprehension," but only that the original posts were deleted from the original threads, and then also that the original tokens of the words that appeared in those original posts were deleted along with them.


Yes, the users could read the same information in the new tokens, which were distinct from the originals. I've been saying this all along. At the outset when I said the original posts had been deleted, I was unaware that copies had been placed elsewhere. You then stated that they had not been deleted, and supported this by pointing out the existence of the copies. There is no further layer, this is the argument we've been having. If you do not disagree that the original posts themselves were deleted, then you do not disagree with my original claim. However, you did disagree with it at first.

By the way, if we look at the original claims more closely, I said the debate had been deleted, then you said that it had not been deleted, but had rather been moved. A debate, it seems, would be like a proposition: it can be represented in different words or even different languages, so long as those words are arranged to have the correct meaning in their language. We could have had the same debate with different statements. So when I said the debate had been deleted, clearly I was talking about a particular token of the debate. Why is this clear? Because the debate in itself can not be deleted any more than a proposition could be deleted. Only the things used to express the proposition can be deleted, but of course the proposition itself cannot. The same is true of a debate. So my statement about the debate being deleted referred only to the particular representation of the debate. I even responded back that I was right by making reference to the posts. You admit the posts themselves were deleted, but if you maintain that the debate was not deleted then you are not disagreeing with me, for I would never say that the debate in itself was deleted, for whatever sort of abstract object that would be is not the sort of thing that can be deleted, just as a proposition is not. I hope you understand the difference between a proposition and a sentence that expresses a proposition. If you do, then you should also understand my distinction between what I've been calling "the debate in itself" and the series of posts that was, basically, a token of that debate. Only one of those two is the sort of thing that could be deleted, and that thing was deleted.

...depending on how you're applying/defining the term. This is still a semantic argument, and I'm done with it.


No, I didn't. I "admitted" that according to your hair splitting, something was deleted and something new was deleted. The "posts themselves" in the form that matters--that is, their meanings and their visual appearance--remained unaltered as far as users were concerned.



So, should we start another semantic argument, or will you just admit that you can't keep your arguments straight and just contradicted yourself in this off the wall backpedalling attempt?

This isn't backpedaling. My original statement that the debate was deleted could technically be taken as referring to the debate in itself or the token of the debate, and as the debate in itself is not the sort of thing that can be deleted, the only interpretation that makes sense (given that I am aware that the debate in itself is not the sort of thing that can be deleted) is that I was saying the token of the debate was deleted. At that point, neither of us had many any clarifications on whether we were speaking of tokens or types, so I thought it would be helpful now that we've seen that the distinction is useful to take a look at how it relates the origin of our dispute. This was merely a clarification, which is obvious. If you had read and understood what I said, you would see that it is in no way a case of backpedaling. The whole point of that last paragraph in my last post was to draw attention to the distinction between "debate" being taken as referring to what I started calling "the debate in itself" as opposed to it being taken as referring to a particular token of the debate. To take two statements which I have said are using "debate" in those distinct sentences and then try to point out a contradiction is merely equivocating. You have failed again.


Oh, I get it. You still don't understand the type/token distinction. Well that clears things up. When I say "the posts themselves" I am referring to the original tokens of them, which it seems you have granted were deleted. You admit that "something was deleted" and the original token of the series of posts is that something. The "form that matters--that is, their meanings and visual appearance" will be the same in all tokens of the same type, and thus has no bearing on "the posts themselves."

There is a distinction I realize I should make here. When I talk of the posts themselves, I am referring to the tokens of the posts rather than the type which those posts are a token of. When I talk about the debate itself, I am talking about something distinct from either the token or even really the type. We could have had the same exact debate in a sense with completely different sentences, and there could be multiple copies of these sentences in the same arrangement. Thus each of these sentences are tokens of the same type, and that type as well as the type we have instantiated here would both express the same debate. This may cause some confusion, but it is plain to see that this would be meant in different ways since "the debate in itself" is something like a proposition, which can be expressed by many different types of sentences, and each of those types can have many different tokens. Propositions and "the debate in itself" are not the sort of thing that can be deleted. A proposition can not be deleted, but a token of sentence that expresses it can. There can also be other tokens of the same type, which will express the same proposition. I hope this clears up any confusion over terminology here. This is in no way further support for my argument, just a clarification of terminology.

And when I say "the posts themselves," I am referring to the substance of their meaning, which was in no way altered by anything the mods did. Like I said, it's matter of semantics, and one you apparently feel like pursuing. Knock yourself out.

Really? You "defeated" me? Where did that take place, exactly?

You're tired and weak.


F you. If you had any clue whatsoever how the backend of forums work, you would know that there is built-in "Move" functionality that enables an administrator to literally "move" (i.e., in no way "delete") posts from one thread to another. THAT is what the moderator employs.

YOU LOSE. How does it feel to write an epic novel that gets negated by my couple of lines?

LMAO!

As I have clearly pointed out, that's not the sort of thing that can be deleted, and I am fully aware that saying such things were deleted would be a category mistake. Of course, I never claimed that such things were deleted. I was talking about the posts being deleted from the threads in the only sense of "posts" in which it makes sense to talk about whether or not such things were deleted. You've been talking about "the exact same words" being the things that were not deleted, which is not the same as "the substance of their meaning." The "substance of their meaning" would not be changed even if there were no copies of the posts left around at all.


In the lengthy debate we had shortly after I first started posting here.


If you paid any attention to what was actually being said here, then you'd see that your claim that the "Move" function literally moves things is presupposes certain ontological commitments which you've likely never considered, so don't be so certain of yourself when you try make claims about what's really going on. I'm not so easily confused about the difference between literal meanings of words and figurative meanings that reflect the practical aspects of the end result. The points you are making have been covered thoroughly. You should catch up before you try to jump back into this.


I wouldn't know, as I have neither written "an epic novel" as you say, or had anything I've said here negated by a couple of lines. Your point has been addressed and you are once again bringing up things that we've already moved beyond. I won't tell you that you lose, as that is impossible since you're not even really in this. You only make weaker versions of points that pheelyks has already covered and to which I've already responded. To say something relevant you'd need to respond to those responses instead of restating what he's already said. You act like I've written a lot here, but this takes up very little time. I guess writing a few paragraphs that thoroughly address a point may be more difficult and time-consuming for you.

That was not at all clear from the context of your original post, and you could have made that point a lot quicker than you did. It is also a point I recognized two full days ago and said quite clearly this wasn't what I was arguing about. You're a fool who likes arguing with himself, apparently. At least you've found someone willing to remain in conversation with you.

Hmm. very interesting use of energy resource.

Too much of a coward to reference it?


Wrong. Pheelyks never brought up the forum's built-in "MOVE" function that I know for a fact exists. It simply moves the existing post to a different, existing thread (in this case, the "Off-topic" thread). You've lost. Admit it and deal with it.

I've made it perfectly clear to any rational person who actually reads what I've written here just what I've been claiming. You claim to agree with what I'm saying and then continue to argue against it. You'll say something about how you were never disputing that the original tokens were deleted and then make a claim that you implies that they were because the claim fails to account for the distinction between types and tokens.

By the way, you say that rather than claiming the original tokens of the posts were not deleted, that you were instead talking about "the substance of their meaning" never being deleted. As I've said, this isn't the sort of thing that can be deleted. But you have supported this view by saying that they couldn't have been deleted because they are still viewable, and deleted means something like "not viewable." This shows a further misunderstanding on your part, as meaning are not the sort of thing that can be viewed just as, and for the same reasons that, they cannot be deleted. Your view is full of confusions.


Isn't this the part where pheelyks is supposed to point out how lazy and stupid you are for not finding it yourself? It's fairly easy to find, as you can see links to threads one has posted in by going to one's profile, and I haven't posted in all that many. I think it's funny that half a year ago you tried to discredit me with the irrelevant fact of my not being here as long as you by saying that I'd been here "10 minutes," and now it's the same thing but "5 minutes" that I've been here.


Yes, we've already discussed the matter of whether or not a "move" function that deals with digitally based pieces of text should be counted as moving in the literal sense. You may disagree with my conclusions on it, but it has been addressed. Pointing out that it is a "MOVE" function and saying that "simply moves the existing post to a different thread" does not make it true that this is a case of moving something in the literal sense of "move." You can keep saying I've lost, but that changes nothing. On the contrary, I am winning, pheelyks is losing, and you aren't even a real competitor.

LMAO! You can play your childish, semantic games all you like, pal. The fact of the matter is that NOBODY who has the slightest clue how forum functionality works will agree with you. The posts were moved; never deleted. The more you play with semantics, the more you play the stubborn fool in readers' eyes. Good job.

For the record, here is how "somewriter" introduced himself to the forum by attacking me:

New here - Anyone had any luck as a writer?

Laugh away, but you're still wrong. I would say that there is a semantic factor here, in that at this point the main issue with the points you raise is whether "move" as it applies to situations in which one moves something with the move function is the same as "move" in the literal sense. However, settling this semantic issue involves going into other matters, which can rightly be counted as falling into the area of ontology. Ontology is quite different from semantics.


Even if that were true, those people may have never actually considered the ontological truths behind such functions, so there opinion only has limited value. No intelligent person with any knowledge of ontology would fail to realize that the two alternatives are distinct despite their having the same effects concerning the practical matters of how we experience the site afterward and how those who use the functions experience them.

By the way, what you're arguing here does not fit with what pheelyks is saying. pheelyks is talking about the meanings of the posts, which obviously are not the sort of thing that can be moved from one place to another. Even if "moving" were literal in the sense of moving a post from one thread to another, only a fool would equate this with moving the meaning. pheelyks did not equate moving the posts with moving the meaning. He acknowledged the distinction and made claims implying that the meaning itself was moved. This makes him a fool. So you are both fools, though for different reasons.


"For the record," that was not my introduction to the forum. I had already posted elsewhere and had received a rude response from you. I clearly state in that thread that I only mentioned you there because you'd already attacked me (and others) elsewhere. It was apparent from reading other threads before I ever posted that you have a horrible tendency to derail any conversations that are even slightly productive, and that your method of doing so involves being a complete b**-h. One rude comment directed toward me was enough to finalize my opinion.

You're "winning" an argument against yourself. You're also the only one that thinks you're winning, which makes this even funnier (or sadder).

If we haven't been arguing with each other, but we've both been arguing, then while it may follow that my argument was in some sense against myself, it would then also follow that your argument was against yourself in the same sense.

You are probably right about me being the only one who thinks I'm winning, and you are probably the only one who thinks you are winning. Perhaps WritersBeware thinks that too, but she has also argued for things that don't fit with what you're saying. It follows that if she thinks you are right then she thinks you are both right and wrong.

It's funny that you say I am arguing with myself, when you were the one who started the disagreement. What has actually happened is that I have continued to defend that claim of mine which you said was false, and you have continued to defend the view that it is false. At some point you started saying that what I was saying was actually a separate point from what you were saying. But if that is the case, then why disagree with me in the first place? You switch stances when you realize you can no longer support your current stance because the arguments against it are better than any you can come up with in its favor. You realized my reasoning held up and that what I was saying was true, so you switched from saying it was false to saying that even if it were true, it would not change the truth of what you were saying. Of course, what you were saying is that my claim was false. It is not possible for my statement to be true and your statement that it is false to also be true. If I say X and you reply with ~X, it makes no sense for you to later say that even if X is true it does not affect whether ~X is true. This is because contradictions cannot be true and so it cannot be the case that both X and ~X are true statements. So the disagreement remained, with me claiming X and you claiming ~X. Yet you try to say that you're actually saying something different, Y, and that whether or not X is true has nothing to do with Y, and that Y is all you were ever saying. However, that's simply not what happened. In summary, I said X, you said ~X, I kept saying X, and eventually you said Y. It turned out that Y was also false, but when I responded with ~Y, you could not tell the difference between ~Y and X, insisting that I was still just saying X.

I've seen other threads in which you have had some conflict with someone. I know that most of the responses you get are incoherent and that you're not accustomed to someone who doesn't have inferior reasoning skills. I know you are usually on the winning end of arguments, whether your stance is right or wrong. Just be a man and admit you lost this one. You show the potential to reach my level at some point. A little time and perhaps some more education might do the trick. Now make your little jokes since you can't make a decent counterargument.

No, it wouldn't. You've been arguing a point I "conceded" three days ago now; I've been arguing that you're not actually reading (or at least not understanding, willfully or otherwise) what I've been writing.

I didn't read your posts past the line I quoted. If you made any new and actually relevant points, you can pull those out and post them and I'll give them a read in a bit.

You're a lying piece of trash. The proof is right there in the thread, which references the other thread in which I originally responded to you with HELPFUL information. You then attacked my character. F!*K YOU.

While I have no interest in participating in the quasi-metaphysical debate about the movement of data on the internet (LOL!!!!), I do have this to contribute:


WB's "HELPFUL" information:


The exchange of a few legit sites, which pay writers.

Very helpful indeed. ^_________________^

Wow, yet another incredibly helpful, on-topic post from Margaret. Gee, whatever would this forum do without her hard work in posting personal gibberish and tirelessly defending fraudulent practices?

Anyway, here's the post that proves her blatantly personal propaganda invalid: essayscam.org/forum/wc/new-here-anyone-had-luck-as-writer-1742/#msg31908

This "helpful" post:


was responded to in kind by this post:


Obviously, WB was "helpful" to somewriter BEFORE somewriter became "helpful" to WBull. ^_^

Anyone who doesn't understand that is just plain retarded. ^____^

Well, you did say the following:


You do shift your focus to the user experience at this point. First, this was irrelevant to the point we'd been arguing up until then. Second, you continued to discuss whether "delete" applied in this case. So, you started your shift to an irrelevant new point while continuing to argue against my claim that the posts had been deleted.

And while you contend that you stopped arguing against my claim, you later said the following:


I grant that you shift the focus to the words rather than the entire posts. I shifted right along with you though and responded about the words, arguing that, as part of the tokens of the posts which were deleted, the tokens of the words were deleted as well. What you say was your "entire argument" had not been mentioned until your previous post.

So then we get to page 2. Fun stuff!


You now reassert that your focus is on the practical aspects of experience. You claim the posts remained visible at all times, which of course contradicts my claim that they were deleted. You do not specify here that you are referring to the meaning of the posts, which is not in the category of deletable things anyway. By the way, I didn't address this before, but when you say, "spouting crap about tokens and whether or not the posts are the same posts now or different because they were moved," it really makes it seem like you didn't understand anything I said before that. If they were literally moved then yes, they were the same posts. The debate was never about whether literally moving the posts would change them to new posts, but rather about whether the sense of "move" in question is literal or if instead the originals were actually deleted.

The rest begins around where we started arguing about whether we arguing about the same thing. So I said they were deleted and you said they weren't. You basically said that even if they were deleted, the words weren't deleted and that the experience was the same. I had already acknowledged that the experience was the same, so I just argued against your mistaken assertion that the words had not been deleted. You finally said that even if the words were deleted, the meaning wasn't. I agreed and pointed out that I had never said and would never say that the meaning had been deleted, as that would be impossible. Your claims about the meaning have nothing to do with my original statement, so why were you arguing with me about the "deleting" matter in the first place? You told me I was arguing with myself. I gave a thorough response that discussed the course of the argument, and you either didn't bother to read it or you read it and had no response. I've provided a more detailed summary here, but it includes more of your own words than the last so maybe you'll bother to look at it.


If you have a response, post it. Otherwise, concede defeat instead of asking me to re-post as a way to avoid coming up with something yourself.

I don't know anything about EW_writer, but he or she did post a link to the relevant thread that shows you were rude first. You just linked to the same thread that you linked to last time. However if you bother to look at when the posts were made, you'll see that yours came before mine. You clearly attacked first. It's funny how you lie and call those who disagree liars as though you really think it will change the truth.

You two keep telling me it's all a matter of semantics. There was a semantic element indeed, as I have granted. Sorting things out involved thinking about whether situations were better described with the word "move" or the word "delete." However, this is really no more of a semantic debate than all other debates that involve words, which are all other debates at all. It's a common strategy for the pseudointellectual, so I'm not really surprised by this behavior. You can't keep up with a true intellectual. I am what you little b*thces want and pretend to be. Try posting something that is well-reasoned and that doesn't contain lies.

...something that I also pointed out much earlier, in the very same thread that WB linked to.

Somewriter:
Your original statement was that the posts had been deleted. If what you actually meant at that time was that the digital information creating the posts had been deleted while new digital information making new posts that exactly duplicated those original posts was created, you should have said so. No rational person would have read your original comment and assumed you were making ontological and metaphysical arguments about the nature of digital information. I didn't "shift focus," it just took you awhile to reveal yourself as a d-ebag who likes to argue about things of no practical value whatsoever. Go **** yourself.

LMAO! That's my "terrible" and "rude" first response to Somewriter? Again, LMAO! You're both so very weak and desperate.


This coming from the lying c*nt who hasn't offered selfless help to ANYONE in this forum-EVER. Literally ALL of her posts involve attacking me or asking for people to help HER with her money issues. Pathetic . . . .

it's time that someone used this board for something useful.

Like, using real information to come to rational conclusions?

sure. let's start with some real information. for someone who ******* so much about people not reading threads, did you read this one?

I don't see any real information anywhere here. anyone have some?

if you need a prompt, my first question is: who wrote the DND list?

Oh, my bad-I stand corrected. I have severely misjudged EW_writer. She has apparently contributed 1 post in which she does not either attack me with personal propaganda or seek selfish advice about her personal money issues. Let's all give EW_writer a huge round of applause for "winning" (just like Charlie Sheen).

LMAO!


Nobody wrote it, you fu**-n clueless buffoon. Site owners submit their own URLs. So much for your obvious, shady attempt to attack the character of the moderators of this forum.

If you are a business owner and wish your websites to be AUTOMATICALLY included on the Do Not Discuss (DND) list you may add your domain here.

WB, has it ever struck you that the same mods whose asses you're kissing put half of your posts in the garbage?

so, let me get this straight... companies submit their company names to an anonymous internet message board's unnamed and unknown moderator. and, the purpose of the forum is to get information on the names of fraudulent companies. no wonder everyone's so frustrated.

Sigh... you just keep coming back for more.


https://essayscam.org/forum/es/amons-2176/


Uvocorp account Up for sale


Kenyan Writers

So which of these other posts do you disagree with? ^______^

It's at least as rude as my question about you that you referred to when saying I attacked you. Mine was no worse than yours, especially considering that yours came first and was unprovoked. You seem to think that typing "LMAO" makes your lies come true.


Actually, as has been made clear in at least one previous post, this is not a matter of the digital information being deleted. I have never said that, and made clear that I do not know whether the digital information would have been copied, i.e. whether having two tokens of the same type would involve them both being based in the same digital information or whether it would involve each being based in separate information (in which case the two instances of the information could also said to be two tokens of the same type). Even if it is just one instance of digitally stored information, it seems this piece of information could be the ground for two qualitatively identical posts. So once again, you haven't understood what I've been saying and have overlooked statements that clearly contradict your assessment of my argument. Whether the piece of stored information was one or two, the duplicate posts are two, not one. Surely even you can understand that distinction.

First, you have no business making assumptions about rational people. Second, making my "original comment" was not "making ontological and metaphysical arguments" and I never said so. Making an assertion is quite different from making an argument. You said the statement was false, so I argued that it was true. As with any other statement, arguing that it is true involves establishing truth conditions as well as showing that those conditions obtained in the situation in question. That is exactly what I was doing. That a statement's being true implies certain things about the world is just what it is for a statement to say something about the world.

You obviously have no response to my last post or the majority of my post before that. The best you can do is try to misconstrue what I've been doing and point out flaws in the misconstrued version. As with your continued whining that it's just semantics, I'm not surprised to see you committing the straw man fallacy over and over, as that is another common strategy of the pseudointellectual.

You simply echoed positions that I made clear ages ago. Plus, you proved yourself a hypocrite at the same time, as you previously got on my case numerous times for mentioning geographical origin and/or "race," as well as highlighting particular members' lack of writing skills.

Next.

Wow.. more WBull. Why am I not surprised?


In which of my posts did I berate anyone because of their geographical location/race? Please don't try to make it seem that my posts and positions are similar to yours. It's creepy.

So... do you still want to deny that you were WRONG about the statement below?

Ah, so you are claiming that I have done so, without any direct connection to proving the person's fraudulent nature? Go for it . . . .

Are you deaf, dumb, AND blind?

I claimed nothing.. you did:


WBoooooooring. ^____^


Oh, so that's what you admitting that you were wrong looks like. LOL!!! I just wanted to make it clear that I have made not 1, but a whole bunch of posts in this forum that have nothing to do with you, and I have made many that you cannot disagree with.

Yeah, as I clearly stated, they have to do with your personal money issues.

sigh.. so which among these posts have to do with my personal money issues?

You just keep coming back for more, WB. ^____^

Three posts? Is that your idea of "valid sample size" from a total population of nearly 2,000? LMAO!

H
Y
P
O
C
R
I
T
E

Sigh... now you're being desperate. Remember, the argument that you were defending was:


There are two things that are going against you here. The word "ALL," and the stupidity of actually placing "Literally" before it. ^___________^

Oh, but it's so cute how you try to bring up statistical principles into a discussion.. like an infant trying to say her first word. ^______^ "Stataaa... stataa..."

Hahaha!!!!