TL;DR;

START READ HERE

Seems the previous TL;DR; was too long ill try to be more concise.

Two people disagreeing with you (for different reasons no less) doesn't mean they are associated, get a grip on that ego.

Grammar and logic aren't the same thing.

You've argued many positions from your imagination and not a single position that was actually taken.

There is no conversation (of this type) to be had with someone who can't separate imagination from actual text.

Good luck with life.

END READ HERE

BIG SENTENCES PAST HERE

I know long sentences aren't your thing, you can stop here, this is only so i have it written down.

Yeah I assumed you were associated with the other user in this thread — the essay and your snide comments about my word use more or less confirms this.

Two people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they know each other, I'm not sure how to even work with the level of ego it'd take to assume two dissenting opinions must be collusion, let alone the level of confusion needed to think that two entirely different opinions are somehow the same opinion because they both happen to disagree with yours.

That's going to be some lucrative therapy work for someone eventually.

By the way, don’t comment on how another person writes and then proceed to fail at capitilizing I. You can keep your essay.

Perhaps i explained it poorly, i was criticizing your word choice because that choice of words made your statements logically incorrect.

Me not capitalising an i doesn't change the logical content.

Word Choice (Logical):

The sky is always blue.

vs

The sky is currently blue.

Capitalisation (grammatical?)

I think the sky is blue

vs

i think the sky is blue

If you genuinely can't see the difference there I'm not sure I'm qualified to help you.

You can keep your essay.

That is my bad, i used too many words and it seems that's a problem.

Though i did put a TL;DR, three sentences should be fine, right ?

By the way, my point to you is the same as the other user — go out and fall on your sword or continue bloviating on an online forum

Your point was invalid the first time you made it, you've done nothing to back it up or expand upon it since then, so it remains invalid.

I'm not sure what kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to be arguing that "violence begets more violence (and is therefore bad)" and then suggest sword based suicide, seems like it'd be quite extensive though.

all I know is it smells like a couple of cowards to me.

You talk a big game for someone who hasn't actually engaged on a point they haven't imagined themselves, but you do you.

( for given values of imaginary and real, this is still only an online forum after all )

There is probably a name for someone who fights imaginary battles to avoid real ones.

hmm, actually ...i wonder if there was someone else we could point to as an example of someone who didn't engage on the talking points and went off on their own imaginary journey so they could claim victory ?

edit: reading prompts, ponderings