I'm not telling you. The fact that your memory is vastly dwarfed by your ego (both of which are dwarfed by your stupidity) is not my problem. Thanks for admitting that you're a fraud and not the red4man that we used to have, though. Not that anyone doubted that, but now you're on record admitting to it.

You really should take up a new hobby. You might do better playing "dodge moving traffic on foot" on the interstate. Or, at least, you'll fail at it fewer times. It is clear though that you suck tremendously at this hobby you have tried to take up here on slashdot.

I agree that the discussions are (usually) the more valuable part of slashdot. However, since there is no functional way (using slashdot, google, or any other mechanism that I know of) to search comments by text, the archived comments aren't that enormously valuable unless you have some way of keeping track of them yourself. Once a comment is more than ~2 weeks old or so finding it again is a huge PITA. They should be retained, but they should also be searchable.

Can we work in some more off-topic chatroom memes while we're at it? You forgot to accuse me of hyperventilating. And since you've completely abandoned the topic of discussion you might as well mention my mom.

National standards in China are not what they are in most western nations. If manufacturing standards are what were applied these buildings could have been printed with asbestos and leaded paint (amongst other things that would not be allowed here) and the structural rigor of the design and material might well not be what would be viewed as acceptable here.

That said, it is a good start. Now if we could 3d print a house that is safe for human occupation, that would be an even more significant step.

You have stated that you begin our discussions with your assumption about me, and that you apply that assumption regardless of the discussion or what I say. I have asked you how I could possibly convince you otherwise and you went back to stating that you always return to that assumption. Hence you have to way for me to convince you that your assumption is faulty.

I enter the discussion in the interest of discussing the topic. It appears you cannot say the same. I don't just randomly enter discussions and bring up matters willy-nilly; you however cannot seem to claim the same.

If you enter the discussion with that assumption, and refuse to partake in an actual discussion because of that assumption, then why do you enter into the discussion at all? You have stated that it is impossible for me to convince you that your assumption is incorrect, hence you have chosen to lock yourself out of discussion.

Being subjected to an external analysis, and being effected by it, are two different things. Just because your reasoning is circular doesn't mean you care. It appeared that your question about external analysis was along the lines of whether or not you cared if your reasoning was obviously flawed and circular. Or are you claiming such moral authority to be entitled to shout down any other person's analysis of your circular reasoning on the basis of them just not being you?

Is that supposed to somehow relate to this discussion? I don't recall your misquote of Bill Maher relating to the Communist Manifesto. Just because he looks like (your misunderstanding of) a communist in comparison to your worldview doesn't mean the two ideas are magically connected.

Because you seem to enjoy wasting my time?

I never made any such claim. Rather, I was asking what I could possibly do to have an actual discussion with you rather than having you continue to act like this instead.

You are, of course, free to make whatever wild-assed assumptions you want. However when you post a claim that it might be possible for me to post in a way that would get you to stop making these crazy assumptions - and actually have a discussion of the material instead of personal silliness - and then promptly turn around and admit that no, such a situation is not possible, you disqualify your own statement. You are, quite simply, presenting a circular argument.

Which does get back to a question i asked you some time ago. Why do you bother posting to discussions in response to opinions that differ from your own, if you have no interest in a discussion on that which you hold different opinions on?

You certainly haven't made any effort to suggest that to be inaccurate other than by your own claim of grave injury.

I asked you what it would take to get you to stop assuming my comments to be garbage. You subsequently stated that you believe my arguments to not be made in good faith. In other words, your reasoning is circular and gives me no ability to get you to ever read my comments without you applying your standard baseless assumptions.

So indeed, you presented no actual reasoning, but you did present your own logical fallacy.

The commercial shows the kid playing Mike Tyson's Punch-Out with the Power Glove. The problem, though is it was completely, utterly, worthless for that game. Sure, moving like a punch would have your player punch. But pulling back your fist? That used a power punch (which would pretty much never land correctly as a result).

Best game for the glove? Hands down, Top Gun.

How does pointing out your circular reasoning not show that you are using circular reasoning?