Philosophy Now Forum

Paradox of Density in both abstract and physical phenomenon.

This is a long argument and considering people generally don't like long arguments, here is an abstract:

1) All mass is formless and 0d point space. All Volume is form and is 1d linear space.
2) A 0d point is multiplied/divided as individuation through linear space.
3) With the increase in point space as mass comes an infinitely exponential increase in volume as linear space.
4) The infinite replication of points equates the point to a boundless field, which in itself is a point.
5) The infinite replication of lines equates to the line to a boundless field, which in itself is a point.
6) The point, as both formless (0d point) and form (1d line as infinite points) results in the maintainance of 0d point and the formation of 1d point (through infinite lines in all directions).
7) The point as unified exists as containing infinite density. This progression of the point to further points, causes an increase in finite density. This increase in finite density ad-infinitum results in infinite density again as no density. Density as finite is material. Density as infinite is immaterial. Materiality is multiplicity. Non-Material is Infinite Unity.

With the increase in finite density comes a paradoxical decrease in density as density, moving to infinity, negates itself.



Density is mass divided by volume or "d = m/v". Mass is a body of "matter" with no definite shape, hence "mass" is "formlessness". Volume is the enclosure of space as "form".

Density is the observation of a dualism between "formlessness" and "form" in simpler terms as both "limitlessness" and "limit" considering the question of "form" (from which formlessness comes as a "negative" quality) leads to a question of "what is its foundation?" effectively leading to a progressively circular argument of "limit".

Under these terms a trifold set of definitions occurs where mass/formless/no-limit are 1 and volume/form/limit are 1. Under these terms "mass" and "volume" are not limited strictly to a standard definition in physics but applies to abstract phenomena as well intuitively observed in "mass or volume of knowledge" or "knowledge is dense".

Hence Density as m/v is "formlessness" divided through "form" where "form" acts as its own "divisor" of "nothing through being". "Form" is divisive by nature. Under these terms "form" or "volume" in the equation of "d = m/v" observes a nature of "x/v" (or strictly "/v" where division is inherent within its nature) where "x" can be any other variable than "mass".

What we understand of density is merely division as a form of boundary where volume (form), as the encapsulation of "mass" (formlessness), results in "volume" itself being relatively "formless" to other volumes.

1) 1 point is "denser" than 2 points considering 1 point is unified. This unity acts as a form of "boundary" in itself where mass and volume exist as "1", so to speak, considering a singularity is observed. This singularity of the "point" as strict "existence" observes a unity of all through all as all.

Under these terms, in quantitative figures considering quantity and quality are "1" through the point, "1>2" and a standard interpretation of the "greater/less than" function in modern math is fundamentally inverted.

2) However if the point divides into 2 points this act of division observes simultaneously a state of "density" considering the point as "massless" observes a division into another "mass" through the volume of the line which connects them. Hence the point as "mass" under a standard definition gains volume by projecting to another point, with this "projection" itself being conducive to a "line" as "infinite point". This divisive nature of the point occurs through "infinity" as "1 directive" embodied through the line. The "point" also gains mass by dividing into a further "point" considering all points are still the same point.

So "1<2" because "greater than" observes a state of density where density observes an inherent degree of "relationship". This "density" occurs through the volume of points observed under their division through a line. In these respects "density" is a state of relation.

This density occurs with an increase in volume as 3,4,5, etc. points, all connected by lines, shows not just an increase in volume but also density as well. This leads to a corresponding increase in "mass" considering the "point" increases.

3) 1>2 observes one is greater than 2 because 1 is more "unified" however this "unity" stems from strict "mass" alone so a problem occurs because this would necessitate the point simultaneously having "volume". This "volume" occurs through the point projecting itself ad-infinitum through the line where the "point" gains "volume" through "infinity as 1 directional". 1<2 , in these respects, because the volume and mass results in 2 having density to speak with this density occurring through expansion of 1 point into 2 points.

So a dualism of 1>2 and 1<2 occurs where density is dependent somewhat on a directional quality of expansion. In a separate respect a dual quality of "contraction" occurs considering the 1 point dividing into 2 points results in 1/2 of the point through two points. 2 points are 1/2 of 1 point, but the problem occurs in the respect the point as "mass" without form "halved" is still the same point multiplied. Hence a dualism occurs between division and multiplication in one respect where the point divided is the point multiplied and vice versa.

1/2, where the 2 points are respective "halves" of the original point shows an inherent nature of progression in the nature of "fractions" where the 1 point progressing to 2 points observes this progression as a degree of division through "individuation" where the 1 point as "unity" is divided through the actualization of the point as "2". Hence "1" becomes a standard of "1 infinity" (through the line) and 2 is the process of the point projecting.

So the halving of point observes a form of "contraction" where "1" "contracts" into a fractal through itself.

1 point progressing to 2 points observes a process of simultaneous expansion and contraction where this dualism observes relative degrees of direction.

"1<2", intuitively through the symbol "<", shows an expansion.

"1>2", intuitively through the symbol "<", shows a contraction.

Both expansion and contraction are moves towards infinity as a form of unity.

"1<2" observes in form and function 1 < (x→∞) considering both 1 point and 2 points exist through a continuum where the point is directed through itself under the "line" (which can be observed intuitively in the number line). Under these terms "(1<2) ≜ (1 < (x→∞))" where "≜" means equal in change.


In a seperate respect, if the symbol "<" is observed as a contraction, where 2 is directed towards 1, "1<2" observes in form and function a form of contraction of 2 always approach one through a continuity of fractals as (x→∞) < 2 as a continuum where the point is always contracting (forming fractals as it expands). Under these terms "(1<2) ≜ ((x→∞) < 2)"

"<" observes a relative "expansion" in standard definition when the statement takes on the directional nature of "a→b" while a dual form of "contraction" when the statement is directed from an opposite degree "a←b" that is not standard within mathematics or language. Again, this expansion is the multiplication of point/number, while contraction is the fracturing of point/number, with both happening simultaneously in one respect as a whole.

Dually, this occurs if "1>2" is read as "2 expanding into 1 through fractals as multiple parts" and "1 contracting into 2 through multiples as fractals". ">" and "<" relativistically observes directional qualities at the same time in different respects where multiple answers are observed from the same function.

Using the above example again, 1<2 takes on a dual role of simultaneous progressive multiples and fractals when "<" or ">" is observes as having a directional quality. (1<2) ≜ (1 < (x→∞)) ((x→∞) < 2)


4) The progression of the point to further point observes an increase in density ad-fininitum considering the progressive nature of the point to another point, under the line as infinite points, necessitates a form of continual progression where 1 point progresses to another point so on and so forth. This in inherent with the number line as 1 number progress to another, of both a whole and fractal nature, and this reflects the nature of one point extending into another ad-infinitum.

A) The line as "volume/form/limit" effectively increases as the points increase and maintains an equalibrium if all points are direct to eachother through a circularity where 1 is directed to 1 through two lines, 3 points through three lines, 4 points through 4 lines, etc. This results in the point as mass/formless/no-limit and the line as volume/form/limit observing an equilibrium where D = ((M=1)→∞)/((V=1)→∞).


The linear progression of the points results in a circularity where the point existing through a line "circulates" back to itself. The "lines" exists through a circularity in this respect as the progression from one point is directed towards another point. Under these terms "density" is the circulary of mass and volume results in the observation of density being a constant state of equilibrium in one respect as both "formless/no-limit" and "form/limit". Density exists as Circularity as both mass/formless/no-limit and volume/form/limit and in these respects Density is Circularity.

B) However this circulation, of point through point, observes density as having a simultaneous nature. The point through point, observes two points being directed towards eachother through 2 lines considering the point is directed through point. Under these terms with the increase in mass comes and increase in volume as 2 points = 2 lines, 3 points = 6 lines, 4 points = 8 lines, etc. This results in the point as mass/formless/no-limit and the line as volume/form/limit observing with an increase in mass comes a doubling of volume where D = ((M=3→∞)→∞)/(V= 2(M=3→∞)→∞) and is involved with a process of continual "halving" ad-infinitum. Under these terms Density takes on a dual linear nature, through the halving of the point, as progressive halving. Density exists as Linearism as mass/formless/no-limit being continually halved by volume/form/limit.

Now Density as continual circularity and halving through linearism leads to paradox. This paradox stems form the nature of a division within Density in accords with the dualism of mass/formless/no-limit and volume/form/limit. So D= M/V leads to a problem where 1 is reduced to a many which continual progresses as such and in these respects leads to problem of continual particulation however this continual particulation, as form of regress is simultaneously circular in nature under the dualism of a spiral.


The Line as both Circular and Linear in nature, resulting in a spiral like Munchhausen dilemma, leads to a third problem:

The Point as directed to Point observes the Circular Nature of A and the Linear Nature of B definitions of Density.


The point projecting from 1 point to 2 points, with each point as "1" observes it existing through the "line" as progressive in 1 direction. However if 1 point and 2 points are directed towards eachother through a simultaneous expansion and contraction, the points are inherently "connected" as "1" where the line is absent of direction and acts as a connector. So the point directed to point results in the circularity of D = ((M=1)→∞)/((V=1)→∞) and the Linear Nature of D = ((M=3→∞)→∞)/(V=2(M=3→∞)→∞). Each point directed to each point effectively observes that each point as progressing towards and circulating through eachother results in all points as connected through a simultaneous circularity and linearism. So while 2 points = 2 lines, 3 points = 6 lines, 4 points = 12 lines, 5 points = 20 lines, 6 points equals 30 lines, etc.

This occurs as a rate of (2/2 = 1/1) → (3/6 = 1/2) → (4/12 = 1/3) → (5/20 = 1/4) → (6/30 = 1/5) → 1/(n→∞).

Under these terms Density is equivalent to infinite volume where mass is strictly a fraction and is approaching zero: D = M/(V→∞) or
D = (M→∞)/((V→∞)→∞). Density is observed as Mass/Formlessness/No-Limit approaching point 0 and as a finite phenomena is 0 or "void". With infinite volume comes no density. Density, under these terms, is the replication of Volume/Form/Limit Ad-infinitum.

This is a problem, however, considering mass/formlessness/no-limit is point 0. So to observe Density as 0 approaching point 0 through volume, density is 0 through infinite volume. Hence Density and Mass are formless through Infinite Volume/Form/Limit, while Density dually exists as the manifestation of further limits ad-infinitum and takes on continual form in these respects.

Density is the continual decrease in mass/formless/no-limit with the continual increase in volume/form/limit. However this leads to a further paradox considering mass/formlessness/no-limit effectively equates to Density only as volume/form/limit in the respect D = 1/(n→∞) considering density becomes progressive volume. So density becomes volume/form/limit in itself through the increase in volume and the absence of mass. Under these terms, with all volume as form/limit conducive to "1" through its simultaneous linear and circular nature, Density as effectively limitless through the 0d nature of no mass, observes its volume being reduced to a inversion of mass/formless/no-limit 0d point space to be limit as point space conducive to infinity.

This infinite "limit", as infinite circularity/linearism, where all points as connected simultaneously and the point in itself is "formless" observes an inversion of the 0d point into pure "form" as 1d. Under these terms, all points as directed towards eachother become "connected" through infinite lines stemming in every direction as all direction, considering the line itself is composed of infinite 0d points. This infinite linearism and circularity in all directions as all directions results in a 1d point.

This is considering the previous observation of the point as 1 directional through the line and circle, or "mass/formless/no-limit" as 1 direction through "volume/form/limit".

Under these terms the standard "point as 1 directional through the line" takes on a dual role of "the line as a connector and absent of direction except through the point as the points. This dual nature observes the line existing through the point maintaining itself as point as negative dimensional (absent of direction) with the "point existing through point as point" being 1 dimensional.

So the series, where x/y observes x = number of zero dimensional points and y = number of 1 dimensional lines changes. Considering each point exists as 1 and the lines which connect the point as -1 a change occurs.


(2/-1 = 1/1) → (3/-3 = -1/2) → (4/-6 = -1/3) → (5/-10 = -1/4) → (6/-15 = -1/5) → 1/-(n→∞)


With the increase of multiplicity of points comes an increase in negative fractions with these fractions effectively progressing to point 0. So a further paradox occurs that with the increase in negative fractions through infinite order. In simpler terms as number of 1d points increase ad-infinitum so does there absence of seperation to to an absence of fractation.

The infinite number of 1d points multiplies at a rate of infinity the number of -1d lines observing an increase in connection ad-infinitum to where only the 1d point is observed and mass/no-limit is a multiplier of volume in one respect that cancels itself out into volume/limit in a seperate respect. This canceling out of "mass/formless/no-limit" effectively multiplies itself through the multiplication of "volume".

The 1d point is inverted into a 1d circle and 1d line through the 0d point and what we understand of density is fundamentally a quality of directed movement.



.
The point as 0d dimensional inverts to 1d and the line as a connector exists as absent of direction through the point through which all direction exists and occurs. In these respects only a 1d point exists and it is observe through multiple points connected effectively through -1 dimensional or "imaginary" lines that do not exist on their own terms. The unity of the 1d point as pure form is inverted into multiple 1d points connected by -1d lines through the 0d point as mass/formless/no-limit. In these respects a 1d point exists through a 0d point and is inside of it so to speak, while simultaneously being outside it, considering the 1d point is inverted through the 0d point into multiple points.


In these terms density is an illusion in one respect while being an approximation of the unity of being through multiplicity. In further terms, with mass as formlessness and no-limit being an illusion in one respect while being an approximation of the unity of being through multiplicity considering as 0d point space it is equivalent to 1d point


So a triadic circulation occurs where D=M/V with M=D*V and V=M/D.

The equation effectively expands as, relative to the starting point: D=(D*V)/(M/D) and M=(M/V)*(M/D) and V=(D*V)/(M/V).

Density, Volume and Mass are all "multipliers" and "Divisors" simultaneously as multiples and fractals where density replicates density, mass replicates mass and volume replicates volume through a process of individuation as the manifestation of units. Density, Mass and Volume are merely replication of directional qualities.


In seperate terms:

All volume is composed of mass, through mass where V = ((M=-V)/(M=-V)), or limit is composed of no-limit, though no-limit as L=-L/-L.

All mass is further composed of volume, through volume where M = ((V=-M)/(V=-M)), or no limit as composed of limit, through no-limit as
-L=(-L/L)∧(L/-L). Mass in these terms, results in formless/no-limit multiplying form/limit in definition.

Under these terms mass and volume form eachother with D=M/V observing a continual progression of D= (-V/-V)/(-M/-M) or D = (M/M)/(-M/-M) or
D= (-V/-V)/(V/V).




So with the increase in finite density causes a loss density as finite.

Like the many numbskulls with advanced physics degrees, and others who obtain their physics understanding from pop-sci channels, you have confused mathematics with physics.

A mathematical/geometrical point cannot have density, just like an image in your brain cannot have mass. In my opinion, you should not express your imagined physics insights until you learn more physics, and figure out the difference between mathematics (just a language) and physics, the principles of which are often well-expressed in that language.

The "paradox" you claim to have explained is not in physics. It resides in your mind. You can fix that with thought and study.

Good luck with that.
Greylorn Ell

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:40 pm Like the many numbskulls with advanced physics degrees, and others who obtain their physics understanding from pop-sci channels, you have confused mathematics with physics.

A mathematical/geometrical point cannot have density, just like an image in your brain cannot have mass. In my opinion, you should not express your imagined physics insights until you learn more physics, and figure out the difference between mathematics (just a language) and physics, the principles of which are often well-expressed in that language.

The "paradox" you claim to have explained is not in physics. It resides in your mind. You can fix that with thought and study.

Good luck with that.
Greylorn Ell

I had a short diatribe effectively inverting your words on yourself, making you look stupid and probably giving reason for you to become angrier given the nature of your post. I have done this enough to know that anger is vain and without purpose and winning is pointless whether is be a simple real life or internet debate, or an actual fight...it is all vanity. I drunk enough of that cup and the delirium is an illusion.

The only victory is existence, and rational arguments exist.

So you have my apologies for what I was about to say but never said...or maybe I am apologizing to myself...but most likely both. Or maybe everyone I have ever hurt or humiliated, regardless of there degree of kindness or cruelty.

With that being said, let's look at the nature of what you have to say:

According to you I need to study physics, but all the experts resort to math. If I go to an expert you contradict yourself. If I do not go to an expert, am I really learning anything? So who do I go to? Where do I learn?



So to get on point about "the point".

Actually a point can have density.

1. A point exists as such relative to a geometric object of a different size. I may have a line of x length. Relative to a larger line, as the starting point of measurement, the line becomes a point.

2. I may stare at a point in empirical space. I may move towards it. Reality unfolds. The point in the distance turns to a tree, the tree to a leaf, so on and so forth. The point contains many "things" and many points.

3. All geometric objects are composed of points, with these points observing a series of forms (premised in various degrees of geometric structures) as the point is observe though these forms. Point space is the glue which holds existence together as existence itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:01 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:40 pm Like the many numbskulls with advanced physics degrees, and others who obtain their physics understanding from pop-sci channels, you have confused mathematics with physics.

A mathematical/geometrical point cannot have density, just like an image in your brain cannot have mass. In my opinion, you should not express your imagined physics insights until you learn more physics, and figure out the difference between mathematics (just a language) and physics, the principles of which are often well-expressed in that language.

The "paradox" you claim to have explained is not in physics. It resides in your mind. You can fix that with thought and study.

Good luck with that.
Greylorn Ell

I had a short diatribe effectively inverting your words on yourself, making you look stupid and probably giving reason for you to become angrier given the nature of your post. I have done this enough to know that anger is vain and without purpose and winning is pointless whether is be a simple real life or internet debate, or an actual fight...it is all vanity. I drunk enough of that cup and the delirium is an illusion.

The only victory is existence, and rational arguments exist.

So you have my apologies for what I was about to say but never said...or maybe I am apologizing to myself...but most likely both. Or maybe everyone I have ever hurt or humiliated, regardless of there degree of kindness or cruelty.

With that being said, let's look at the nature of what you have to say:

According to you I need to study physics, but all the experts resort to math. If I go to an expert you contradict yourself. If I do not go to an expert, am I really learning anything? So who do I go to? Where do I learn?



So to get on point about "the point".

Actually a point can have density.

1. A point exists as such relative to a geometric object of a different size. I may have a line of x length. Relative to a larger line, as the starting point of measurement, the line becomes a point.

2. I may stare at a point in empirical space. I may move towards it. Reality unfolds. The point in the distance turns to a tree, the tree to a leaf, so on and so forth. The point contains many "things" and many points.

3. All geometric objects are composed of points, with these points observing a series of forms (premised in various degrees of geometric structures) as the point is observe though these forms. Point space is the glue which holds existence together as existence itself.

You wrote, According to you I need to study physics, but all the experts resort to math. If I go to an expert you contradict yourself. If I do not go to an expert, am I really learning anything? So who do I go to? Where do I learn?

You actually go to a school, or educate yourself by spending your days in a library. Wikipedia can be helpful. At this point in whatever passes in your fat assed little self for a life, you could sell your comic books, then obtain and read the "Great Books" collection. But all you're doing now is making typical excuses for not learning things. Every ignorant fool has a list of excuses for his ignorance, but no such list includes the real reason-- stupidity.

If you study German, which is just a language, your job is to learn the language, period. Like any language, German is a vehicle for expressing ideas. Some of those will be bullshit (Mein Kampf)) and others will be brilliant (Leibnitz, etc.)

Only after learning the language will you be qualified to evaluate the ideas it might describe.

So it is with mathematics, geometry, and physics-- subjects about which you are abysmally ignorant. The remainder of your comments reflect not only your ignorance, but your satisfaction with being so effing ignorant. There is no point in my commenting on them, because I do not think that you are sufficiently intelligent to understand any criticisms on whatever passes in you for cogent thought.

Consider relieving this dreadful forum of your presence, get a job, move out of your parent's basement, and go to a trade school that at least teaches you how to hammer nails properly.

And you can put your hypothetical "diatribe" where the sun never shines. You are insufficiently intelligent to make me, the Three Stooges, or your cat look stupid.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:20 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:01 am

Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:40 pm Like the many numbskulls with advanced physics degrees, and others who obtain their physics understanding from pop-sci channels, you have confused mathematics with physics.

A mathematical/geometrical point cannot have density, just like an image in your brain cannot have mass. In my opinion, you should not express your imagined physics insights until you learn more physics, and figure out the difference between mathematics (just a language) and physics, the principles of which are often well-expressed in that language.

The "paradox" you claim to have explained is not in physics. It resides in your mind. You can fix that with thought and study.

Good luck with that.
Greylorn Ell

I had a short diatribe effectively inverting your words on yourself, making you look stupid and probably giving reason for you to become angrier given the nature of your post. I have done this enough to know that anger is vain and without purpose and winning is pointless whether is be a simple real life or internet debate, or an actual fight...it is all vanity. I drunk enough of that cup and the delirium is an illusion.

The only victory is existence, and rational arguments exist.

So you have my apologies for what I was about to say but never said...or maybe I am apologizing to myself...but most likely both. Or maybe everyone I have ever hurt or humiliated, regardless of there degree of kindness or cruelty.

With that being said, let's look at the nature of what you have to say:

According to you I need to study physics, but all the experts resort to math. If I go to an expert you contradict yourself. If I do not go to an expert, am I really learning anything? So who do I go to? Where do I learn?



So to get on point about "the point".

Actually a point can have density.

1. A point exists as such relative to a geometric object of a different size. I may have a line of x length. Relative to a larger line, as the starting point of measurement, the line becomes a point.

2. I may stare at a point in empirical space. I may move towards it. Reality unfolds. The point in the distance turns to a tree, the tree to a leaf, so on and so forth. The point contains many "things" and many points.

3. All geometric objects are composed of points, with these points observing a series of forms (premised in various degrees of geometric structures) as the point is observe though these forms. Point space is the glue which holds existence together as existence itself.

You wrote, According to you I need to study physics, but all the experts resort to math. If I go to an expert you contradict yourself. If I do not go to an expert, am I really learning anything? So who do I go to? Where do I learn?

You actually go to a school, or educate yourself by spending your days in a library. Wikipedia can be helpful. At this point in whatever passes in your fat assed little self for a life, you could sell your comic books, then obtain and read the "Great Books" collection. But all you're doing now is making typical excuses for not learning things. Every ignorant fool has a list of excuses for his ignorance, but no such list includes the real reason-- stupidity.

If you study German, which is just a language, your job is to learn the language, period. Like any language, German is a vehicle for expressing ideas. Some of those will be bullshit (Mein Kampf)) and others will be brilliant (Leibnitz, etc.)

Only after learning the language will you be qualified to evaluate the ideas it might describe.

So it is with mathematics, geometry, and physics-- subjects about which you are abysmally ignorant. The remainder of your comments reflect not only your ignorance, but your satisfaction with being so effing ignorant. There is no point in my commenting on them, because I do not think that you are sufficiently intelligent to understand any criticisms on whatever passes in you for cogent thought.

Consider relieving this dreadful forum of your presence, get a job, move out of your parent's basement, and go to a trade school that at least teaches you how to hammer nails properly.

And you can put your hypothetical "diatribe" where the sun never shines. You are insufficiently intelligent to make me, the Three Stooges, or your cat look stupid.

Greylorn

Wait...ROFl!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hold on...ROFL!!!!

You said there is no point in commenting, after spilling out your frustrations over a full page that probably took you an hour to think of.

Here is five minutes:

Bachelors in criminal justice, trade school carpenter, scaffolding in nuclear facilites/secret security clearance, security, training in sales and basic finance and door to door advertising for a summer, livestock training sheep/pigs/chickens, private health care and nursing, seminarian during the scandals, stick fighting/martial arts (where I can which is rare), oilrig roustabout, variety of fitness records even an ironman said "you could have died from" (do you want me to shove those down your throat too?), blacksmithing by coal forge and hammer, mineral/precious metal hunting, amateur lumberjack (built a shitty cabin using only an axe), won multiple fishing tournaments, rabbit hunting with a bow, flashed by ufo on multiple occasions (outside witnesses), ghosts (outside witnesses again), Greek mafia interfering with family in my youth...and a million other damn things I cannot remember.

Educated from a library and school as well as mentored by a Harvard polymath professor who wrote speeches for the Clintons in the white house. Looking at master's right now.

Blah, blah blah. If I post this someone will find a reason to be pissed, if I don't then someone will go on with the ad hominums. Yeah it is bullshit to post your resume to some stranger on the internet, but even then it still shows a larger variety of life experience than you could even lie about. You are just a number...and I broke enough of your type into crying sacks of tears that I literally just don't want to do it anymore.

Peace and quiet and a respectable attitude would be nice.


Your inability to address the actual thread topic shows you have nothing to offer. You would have known this by arguing against the point is more valid than ad hominums.

If you have an issue take it up with the mods, I already pmed them twice on my own about either overposting or getting rid of posts. Even I am sick of being the only interesting person here.