In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[WhiteLion]

something can not come from nothing...big bang...blah.. blah..blah...evolution.. blah.. blah...we could not and would not of developed..the intelligence and abstract rezoning we have if it did not exists before us and had no purpose...we pathetic humans can essentially take earth...dirt...breath life into and create crafts like the space shuttle capable of reaching for the heavens...just as god has done with us

Your on the right track lol could GOD have stepped out of nothing, or could HE have always existed????????

 

[eots]

Your on the right track lol could GOD have stepped out of nothing, or could HE have always existed????????

"GOD" must of always exsisted..these concepts of time..space.. beginnings and ends are clearly ..human concepts

 

[Diuretic]

What a deeply simplistic, unreasoned and weird post.

You sound like a 7 year old.

And you sound like a 23 year old ponce from Surrey.

 

[Diuretic]

Can EVERYONE please stop replying to PUBUS.

She is clearly not very bright...and she clearly NEEDS this forum...spends 12 hours a day writing the same thing every single day.

At first i thought that she was a teenager...from the writing style and the desperately superficial arguments and pseudo intellectualism... however i now fear that the problem is real and that she will never grow out of it.

She must be an american jesus freak... untravelled, close-minded, and simply intellectually not up to debate or reason.


So to the rest of the forum.... try not to feed her sickness.

And why don't you wind your head in? if you can't enjoin the debate then stay out of it and stop issuing orders to posters.

 

[N4mddissent]

does anyone else hear crickets?

 

[eots]

does anyone else hear crickets?

as long as its just crickets..I think your ok...as long as the crickets don't tell you to kill or anything like that.. I belive its harmless enough..but it could be a auditory problem that is medical so if it persist I would get it checked out

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I was not making an argument with the fallacies post.

It's good that you can recognize that... as it is the first step towards healing...

I was merely pointing out your extraordinarily excessive use of such fallacies. I provided a link to a site which defines those fallacies.

Thanks but I'm a walking resource on the issue and am sufficiently familiar with the subject to once again call: BULLSHIT

Obviously I felt those definitions applicable to the text quoted in association with each fallacy. I did not realize your comprehension difficulties were so severe that when you considered the definition of each fallacy, you saw no applicablity whatsoever. Let me help.

You 'felt' that the definitions were applicable, but you were unable to state a case wherein that feeling was supported with a well reasoned, logically valid and intellectually sound basis... Your feeling was one wherein you desperately wanted to discredit the argument, but you own inadequacies were such that you hoped to project the respective segments as being fatally flawed portions of a larger more comprehensive argument.

Your tactic is intellectually dishonest and would likely win you a loss for the entirety of any team which you might be representing in the setting of a formal debate. I can assure you it would were I party to the judgment of that debate. As we'll see, and this is a conclusion which I am advancing without having read the 'explanations' you've clearly hoped to pass off in this soon to be discredited attempt.

It is absolutely wild how the positions advanced by the left are nearly impossible to accurately interpret? It's analogous to the Arabs who inevitably run to correct the misinterpretation of one of their idiots when they're caught demanding that Israel be destroyed... this based upon some idiosyncrasy within their language which doesn't translate to English.

You are attacking the person/people making the argument rather than the argument which is the essence of the Personal Attack fallacy.

Patently absurd, my argument was one wherein I attacked the absurd tactic of the left to demand that they or their argument has been misrepresented or otherwise misconstrued and therefore the reaction to that misunderstood position is said to be inappropriate... Naturally however the left would find that the slightest contest of their flawed reasoning is an ad hom attack.

I suspect that she refused to answer the question because to answer the question would highlight that such a conclusion is absurd given the infinitesimal base of knowledge which the member feels she possesses, assuming she did not project that she was in possession of more than an infinitesimal amount of the scope of all knowledge through time and space.

Here you are taking presenting the argument that she did not answer because it would be absurd, thus presenting only your conclusion when the individual had already stated that there is a possibility of the existence of god but did not feel it was probable. In more general terms, since you have admitted to generalizing all opposing views anyway, the theistic argument that atheism requires absolute knowledge to definitively say god does not exist is a straw man since the common atheistic position is that while possible, the absence of any convincing evidence does not make it probable that god, as commonly defined, exists. When one has not conclusively stated that god is an impossiblity, it is a strawman to attack them saying they require absolute knowledge. This also seems to be approaching the Burden of Proof fallacy which is very clear in that the one claiming the existence of god has the burden of proof upon them to give evidence of that existence or admit that the non-belief is reasonable. By stating that one must have absolute and complete knowledge of the universe to know there is no god, you are attempting to subtly shift the burden of proof on the one who has made no claim.

Once again you're absolutely incapable of supporting your assertion that the position was fallacious. The segment begins with the overt indication that the position is opinion, which is all that is possible given the oppositions failure to address the argument and their tactic of avoidance. It assesses the scope of the argument, and draws a valid argument which rests on sound reasoning. There is no doubt of poof at issue in this segment. It is an incontestable fact the opposition avoided the issue and the argument concluding her reasons for doing so is logically valid and intellectually sound.

I suspect that she refused to answer the question because to answer the question would highlight that such a conclusion is absurd given the infinitesimal base of knowledge which the member feels she possesses, assuming she did not project that she was in possession of more than an infinitesimal amount of the scope of all knowledge through time and space.

I used Appeal to Belief on this because on my initial reading I got the impression that because a lot of poeple believe that using the principles you describe their lives are happy, but on review I say that it is really more appropriate to label this a questionable cause fallacy. Not only do you not provide any evidence to support your unsubstantiated claim, but even if there was a correllation, it is a well-known fallacy to equate correllation to causation with no further evidence. ...

First, you'll never find me leaning on the popularity of a given position as evidence of that position's potential validity.

Second, I did provide evidence of my position and that evidence rests within the source of the quote itself. Secondly, you're speaking to a position you've failed to properly quote... try again. Let's hope you've been more careful in the rest of this screed...

In simple terms I and millions of others have openly declared our experience of the effects of the God force...

Appeal to popularity is simply using as part of your argument the fact that a premise is widely accepted as true. Being widely accepted is not indication of its validity. (I would have thought you would have at least gotten this one...is pretty clear cut)

Absolute nonsense. I am not appealing to the sum of those that believe in God... and hoping that the sum of believers will serve as an authority by its perceived popularity; nor is my position framed in a way which ANY reasonably intelligent person could infer that I am.

This segment of my argument is responding to the erroneous assertion that there is no evidence of the God force; that the God force is not an observable force in Nature... I am merely stating the fact that millions (and its actually BILLIONS) of people do observe the God force and I am one of them. Thus that fact refutes that the God force is not an observable force of nature.

... and through the same species of reasoning which projects that simultaneously they can feel gravity and that they can only feel the effects of Gravity... they demand that our experience of the effects of the God force is an illusion... one which can be explained through their vast understanding of the physical sciences... which they're loathe to quantify, because to do so will expose what they claim to be a vast resource as something well south of 'teeny tiny...'

The argument from ignorance is when you state that you experience the effects of god.

ROFLMNAO... DO WHAT? SO I am appealing to ignorance through the citation of my own first hand experience? LOL... Get serious.

There is no evidence that any experience you have is the effects of god but in the absence of an explanation for those experiences, you have asserted that they are the affect of god.

THIS IS A CLASSIC ad Ignorantiam. Look skippy... YOU can't determine that there is or is NOT evidence until you are qualified to determine WHAT SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD AND WOULD NOT BE COMPRISED OF. PERIOD.

You can offer an opinion that is JUST as certain regarding the viability of a given financial investment... BUT that opinion is not worth DICK unless your expertise in what IS and is NOT a sound financial investment... You could advance an opinion on the prognosis of your neighbors cancer... but that opinion is likewise of no value to ANYONE until you're level of knowledge regarding the human biological system is sufficient to actually KNOW what the state of that cancer is. YOU are NOT in a position to KNOW ANYTHING about God... as you're knowledge of the scope of the universe is indiscernible when set against the scale of potential which the scope of time and space represents.

As far as the argument from ridicule, you try to caricature the opposing view, throw in a little attack at the end, and assert your conclusion by portraying other conclusions as silly. When in fact, you are bringing up the same pointless statements that have no bearing on the argument.

ROFL... actually, I prove that the opposition's argument is not viable, then ridicule them for their intellectual limitations... Is that ridicule fallacious? No... in that it is not a function of the argument. It is an informed opinion which rests upon incontrovertible evidence, which while not appreciated by the opposition is, as previously noted, compounded by their inability to contradict it. So it pisses them off… So what?

For example you bring up the absolute knowledge strawman again. You provide no evidence for your claim that your experiences are the effects of god. etc...

ROFL... Not so sis... my first hand testimony is evidence; you're confusing the concept of 'evidence' with that of conclusive proof... I've laid out detailed layers of reasoning which stands as evidence and so on. You simply want to dismiss that evidence is inconclusive... and determine that your judgment is the final arbiter of reality and judge that 'There is no God.'

The premise of this thread is that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD: HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST! This is a premise which the evidence of those who have contributed has CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN TO BE INDISPUTABLE... in that if Human Rights are a human contrivance and humanity determines that human rights do not exist, then... IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD: HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST!

But you people can't even follow that immutable reasoning... yet you feel you're qualified to determine what does and does not exist within the scope of universal time and space...

I hope you have a better understanding now.

Skippy there is almost no end to the things I do not understand at ALL; and those thing I can barely get my head around... but leftists and humanism and their absurdities is not one of them... On this I am expert... on a level you will likely never be able to fully comprehend. I can say with no reservations that I am one of the world's foremost authorities on one of the all time great waste of atoms... the common leftist and the full scope of their toxic ideas.

Now so as to prevent anyone from thinking that I am touting my own horn... holding that this field of expertise is something special... the full scope of everything one needs to know to be expert on the ideological left and humanism can be fully covered in 12 pt, bold font printed on the cover of a matchbook...

 

[eots]

What a deeply simplistic, unreasoned and weird post.

You sound like a 7 year old.

Prof. Ludwig Wittgenstein

The aspects of things that are most important to us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity.

 

[cjcord]

Did someone slip something into my tea without me knowing?:S

 

[Vintij]

Ok... So the assertion is that 'everyone can feel gravity,' so the question must now become: "What does gravity feel like?"




Clearly the member now needs to modify their position to one of feeling the 'effects' of gravity... wherein the brain normalizes the force of gravity on the body when one is resting at a constant opposition to that force; which must by default strip any physical notice of gravity while the body is constant with that force; the only 'feeling' is the brains sensing of a delta between that normalized constant and the change of the bodies state with regard to gravity... which would sense a heavy pressure when the body was in opposition, excellerating against that force; and a lightness or weightlessness when the state changes to compliance...

The fact remains that one does not 'feel gravity'... one merely senses a change in the state of their body from what the brain charts as normal, with respect to that force.




On what basis do you classify God as existing beyond the scope of the laws of the universe? Now let's be honest and simply admit that you have absolutely NO BASIS in fact or reason on which to rest that conjecture. I mean to be able to reasonable come to such a conclusion, one would necessarily need to be in possession of sufficient knowledge regarding the laws of the universe... to know what is and is not within those laws... wouldn't ya? And frankly buddy... you aren't that guy, are ya?

Here let's try this:

Of all of the knowledge, througout the ages, across the scope of time and space throughout the universe... how much would you say that you presently possess?

<1%, 10%, 50%, 75%, 99.9999999...%

Now without regard to that which you feel you possess... (which we're pretty sure is WAY DOWN below that <1% thingy...) isn't it possible that SOMEWHERE in that void of ignorance that a God force could exist without you being able to prove it? And the reason you couldn't prove it would be because you don't know enough about the laws of the universe to even begin to know what the questions are that would even lead you in the right direction.





That is absolute BULLSHIT! You don't label, yet you establish, on absolutely NO BASIS, that God, IF he exists, must exist outside the scope of the universe and it's laws... ROFLMNAO... Oh you're a major labeler friend; get that straight and you'll be much happier.



Atheism is today what it has always been... the anti-religion, religion. It's the venue on which evil rests... it's the big lie which serves to rationalize a desire to escape accountability. And there are few things on this earth that are sillier than a typical atheist.

I dont fully understand what your trying to say here. Are you saying that I personally know everything? Or are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics, and the forces that govern the universe are not correct?

Look, I dont know how to put it much clearer for you. The god of the bible, does not exist, the god of any religion does not exist and its not because I say so....its because after the english enlightenment, we began to actually test observed events in the universe and even events we can not visibly see. Since then, nobody has been able to prove the existence of paranormal activity therefore miracles do not exist. Therefore the god of the bible does not exist and if there is a god, he is not the god of the bible. If there is a god, it would be hard to think of him as a complex, intelligent being similar to ourselves. It would be alot easier to think of god as a simple force or maybe even the theoretical higgs boson that will be detected within the next few years at cern.

I still dont see how instulting me will get your point accross though. Which god are you talking about, and how do you intend to provide physical evidence that this god exists? Also, you said that somewhere in the void of ignorance exists a god force. This is exactly what I am talking about, it is in the metaphysical realm and can go no futher than philosophical theory. Science is in the buisness of hard, physical, testable and scrutinized evidence of the existence of something. And granted science has not figured many many many things out, infact science has not scratched the surface, but one thing is certain.....the god of the bible is most certainly proven to not exist based on the fact that no paranormal event from the bible has been proven to have happened and will not ever be re-created today.

 

[WhiteLion]

"GOD" must of always exsisted..these concepts of time..space.. beginnings and ends are clearly ..human concepts

getting closer time and space continuums true within the human confines of reason

 

[WhiteLion]

I dont fully understand what your trying to say here. Are you saying that I personally know everything? Or are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics, and the forces that govern the universe are not correct?

Look, I dont know how to put it much clearer for you. The god of the bible, does not exist, the god of any religion does not exist and its not because I say so....its because after the english enlightenment, we began to actually test observed events in the universe and even events we can not visibly see. Since then, nobody has been able to prove the existence of paranormal activity therefore miracles do not exist. Therefore the god of the bible does not exist and if there is a god, he is not the god of the bible. If there is a god, it would be hard to think of him as a complex, intelligent being similar to ourselves. It would be alot easier to think of god as a simple force or maybe even the theoretical higgs boson that will be detected within the next few years at cern.

I still dont see how instulting me will get your point accross though. Which god are you talking about, and how do you intend to provide physical evidence that this god exists? Also, you said that somewhere in the void of ignorance exists a god force. This is exactly what I am talking about, it is in the metaphysical realm and can go no futher than philosophical theory. Science is in the buisness of hard, physical, testable and scrutinized evidence of the existence of something. And granted science has not figured many many many things out, infact science has not scratched the surface, but one thing is certain.....the god of the bible is most certainly proven to not exist based on the fact that nearly every event from the bible has not been proven to have happened.

Far as i know the Bible hasnt ever been disproved, but only in the fallacies of the minds of soulish degenerate anti-christ, never seen one point disproved in the BIBLE. The fool said in his heart there is no GOD Psalm 14:1

 

[cjcord]

what the HELL is a soulish degenerate??? Why do you make no sense???

 

[Vintij]

Far as i know the Bible hasnt ever been disproved, but only in the fallacies of the minds of soulish degenerate anti-christ, never seen one point disproved in the BIBLE. The fool said in his heart there is no GOD Psalm 14:1

Because you dont read. First, based on sedimentology, oceanography, climatology, archeology.........a major flood, never happend. If it did, I think we would have evidence by now dont you?

Nobody can live to the age of 400, based on research in the field of biology, molecular biology, anthropology and the list goes on and on. So theres number two.

I can really pull out over a thousand paranormal fantasies in the bible that have zero evidence of actually happening while having mountains of evidence that it will not and can not ever happen.

 

[eots]

getting closer time and space continuums true within the human confines of reason

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” ?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I could not possibly answer that question as I am not so foolish as to believe that I, or any other thinking person, has any idea what amount of unknown variables there might be in the universe.

LOL... Man that is hysterical. You admit you have NO IDEA, yet you stand adamant in your views...

Funny stuff...

This one is simpler to answer. When one says they can feel gravity, they always mean they feel it's effects.

Yeah? No shit...? Everyone and EVERY TIME? Always? LOL... It's wild that you're prepared to accept the existence of gravity simply because you sense its effects, but you're not prepared to accept the existence of the God force where the effects of that force are also sensed...

ROFL... My my... You're ARE open minded aren't ya?

Gravity is not tangible, so it cannot be considered to have a texture. Gravity is a force, but one that can be easily demonstrated. Not so with a "God" force.

Hmm... No? Interesting... I submit that Gravity itself is evidence of God; that your very existance is a fair demonstration of that force... You of course will want to break that existance down into a droll discussion of the physical sciences and conclude that the relevant biological processes fully explain your existence... sadly (for you) you've already admitted that you know viturally nothing of the universe... (of course you made that statement in a frenzy of perceived enlightenment and it likely never occur to you that the same admission essentially discredit pretty much everything else ya have to say on the issue... Which, if it makes ya feel any better DOES go a long way toward supporting just how correct your assessment of your substantial limitations are.

You may want to revisit this post and see where your argument fails from another perspective.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...-human-rights-cannot-exist-22.html#post842585

You may choose to give examples of a God force, but I can assure you all of those examples can be explained by scientific means.

ROFLMNAO..< DAMN YOU'RE DENSE... PLEASE! HOW ON EARTH DOES A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE MINUTIA INVOLVED IN A GIVEN PROCESS DISCREDIT THE ASSERTION THAT THE PROCESS IS EVIDENCE OF A FORCE WHICH YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS TO MEASURE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO MEANS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS...

Try this... measure some essential trait of the closest dimensional membrane to our dimension; tell me what the essential trait is and what values you've determined represent that trait.

Before ya start, I'd kinda like to hear what you plan to use to assess this data and perhaps some discussion of the protocols and standards you're program will use... this mostly to avoid the unlikely event that you lose your mind trying to comprehend dimensional membranes... before you return here to prove my point.

 

[N4mddissent]

Patently absurd, my argument was one wherein I attacked the absurd tactic of the left to demand that they or their argument has been misrepresented or otherwise misconstrued

I am a patient man when dealing with a child-like mind. Maybe I can make it easier.
See the debate about god's existence.
See the unsupported general attack on how people on the political left make arguments.
That is not attacking the question of god's existence.
Uh Oh, Pub! That is a fallacy.
Stop! Pub! Stop!

The segment begins with the overt indication that the position is opinion, which is all that is possible given the oppositions failure to address the argument and their tactic of avoidance.

Because their argument did not fit within the strawman argument you wished to attack, you accuse them of avoiding the question and then attack the strawman.

It assesses the scope of the argument, and draws a valid argument which rests on sound reasoning. There is no doubt of poof at issue in this segment.

What the hell do you mean? Please specifically define "scope of the argument" as it is used here. And go head and clearly outline the valid argument and sound reasoning to which you allude, since I believe I missed it. As far as proof, this segment was from a direct line in which you claimed absolute knowledge was necessary to not believe in the existence of god. Your faulty percent of knowledge question is pointless unless you are attacking the straw man. It is irrelevant what percent someone believes their knowledge of the universe comprises relative to the question of the existence of god. Why? Because unless they make a definitive claim that the existence of god is an impossibility, the burden of proof falls upon you making the claim that the existence of god is a certainty. That is why the question you asked need not be answered, because it is irrelevant.

Second, I did provide evidence of my position and that evidence rests within the source of the quote itself. Secondly, you're speaking to a position you've failed to properly quote... try again. Let's hope you've been more careful in the rest of this screed...

First, you've got second followed by secondly in there. Second, I just looked back at my post and I did provide the correct quote to which I was referring. You should try again.

Absolute nonsense. I am not appealing to the sum of those that believe in God... and hoping that the sum of believers will serve as an authority by its perceived popularity; nor is my position framed in a way which ANY reasonably intelligent person could infer that I am.

This segment of my argument is responding to the erroneous assertion that there is no evidence of the God force; that the God force is not an observable force in Nature... I am merely stating the fact that millions (and its actually BILLIONS) of people do observe the God force and I am one of them. Thus that fact refutes that the God force is not an observable force of nature.

I guess the millions of people comment was superfluous. After all, whether it is one person or a million, evidence of the effect of god is evidence. Of course, anyone familiar with logical discourse worth their salt will tell you that anecdotal evidence does not count as evidence when attempting to support a claim. Otherwise we would have to start believing every alien abduction story, bigfoot sighting, etc... And since by your own account you would never attempt to say that the large number of people with similar beliefs lends validity to the anecdotal evidence (that would be the appeal to popularity), then the only reasonable conclusion is that this entire section is just pointless rambling on your part.

Of course, the way you state without qualification that people do observe the god force and describe it as a fact makes me wonder if maybe you do not comprehend how saying something is true because you personally felt it is inappropriate and worse than amateurish in logical discourse. Surely that's not the case.

ROFLMNAO... DO WHAT? SO I am appealing to ignorance through the citation of my own first hand experience? LOL... Get serious.

Oh dear...it appears that you are an amateur with no understanding of logic. In reasonable debate, your first hand experience is worth exactly...jack shit. And that rolling around laughing frequently- I understand that is not uncommon in the mentally disturbed.

THIS IS A CLASSIC ad Ignorantiam. Look skippy... YOU can't determine that there is or is NOT evidence until you are qualified to determine WHAT SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD AND WOULD NOT BE COMPRISED OF. PERIOD.

You are the one presenting "evidence". And in terms of what evidence would be comprised of, it would be up to you to provide appropriate evidence. I'm sure lots of people engaged in philosophical debate would find it much easier if the standard of evidence was "I know x to be true because I have experienced it and you should just accept that". That is a complete violation of the spirit of rational debate. That is you asking others to blindly accept your premises.

ROFL... actually, I prove that the opposition's argument is not viable, then ridicule them for their intellectual limitations... Is that ridicule fallacious?

You did not prove the argument was not (viable)? You proved you could attack a straw man position without offering anything more than your personal testimony as evidence for your claim that god exists. It's one of the worst constructed arguments I have ever read.

I hope while I responded to this, you have been responding to the more in depth arguments and critiques which I in which I engaged with you in the posts following the original fallacy comments. I mean, this was not even meant to be an argument, just an illustration. We can let this stand and others who visit this thread can read the argument in question, read the definitions of the fallacies, and read my guided walkthrough of how they apply and reach their own conclusions about how applicable they are to your arguments on that post.

In the meantime, let's not avoid the actual issue. And while I know that this thread's title, it stands to reason that if you cannot support the existence of god, then it will follow that god is irrelevant to the question of human rights.

And look, no symbolic laughter or all-caps all the way through the post. It can be done. You can do it too if you try Pub. Oh, and I don't know where the "sis" thing came from, but a 6'1 260 lbs former football player with a beard would make an ugly sister...

 

[N4mddissent]

Oh my...why don't you deal with my real arguments, where I showed your obviously false logic? You know, where you defined god differently at different times depending on the argument you were trying to make?

And you really need to control this word "scope". It's beginning to feel like the word "inconceivable" as used in The Princess Bride.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I am a patient man when dealing with a child-like mind. Maybe I can make it easier.

OK but I have to admit I'm dubious...

See the debate about god's existence.

Yeah...

See the unsupported general attack on how people on the political left make arguments.

No... I see a statement, which is designed as a specific response to a specific question and decidedly not designed as an argument at all, but a simple rejoinder... of which, the supporting elements have been excluded by YOU.

How odd that you would want to deceptively imply that such was advanced as argument... I mean given the assumption that you're an honest broker and not a flaccid little organ of the political left...

Look Skippy, you're argument fails... I'm going to assume that ya lead with your power and that this dead dog was the best ya had... so on that note I will part company tonight and let you try again when you've had time to reconsider... (Here's a clue... you have no shot... your closest held feelings are lies and those that indoctrinated you, failed to impart to you ANYTHING which could possibly serve as an understanding of logic... I would recommend Irving Copi... he does a wonderful job of introducing logic to rookies... Best of luck with that.)

Oh, and I don't know where the "sis" thing came from, but a 6'1 260 lbs former football player with a beard would make an ugly sister...

Yes it did and I will tell her you said hi...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh my...why don't you deal with my real arguments, where I showed your obviously false logic? You know, where you defined god differently at different times depending on the argument you were trying to make?

You best get that delusion looked at... it seems to be getting worse as the desperation climbs... ya might mention that.

Again... if they ask what happened, just tell them that you believed that things were happening that you could not provide a scintilla of evidence from the written record to support; which is particularly worrisome in that the whole episode occurred in a forum wherein the entire history rests solely within the written word.