> No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated.

> ... which is why everything you are saying is nonsense.

You're being rude again. Once again this is against the site terms. I'm happy to engage in any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve name-calling, as I'm sure you've seen a number of times. This thread, however is closed.

No one is being rude to you. If you don't want someone to mention that you made up something they didn't say, then don't do that. If you say the same things over and over that have been explained to you to be false, don't be surprised if that gets brought up. If you can confront what I'm saying with something true, feel free.

> No one is being rude to you.

You may wanna chat with your mother for a second opinion ;)

> No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated.

I didn't say you said 'haters' that's a stylized/flourished way of saying an opposing viewpoint. That's why it's in quotes. If anything it was self-deprecating/deferential with respect to my biases. Jumping in with "that's not how logic works" is certainly a valid thing to call out as whining or complaining because again it's not particularly civil. Off the basis of your misinterpretation you once again accuse your counter-party of 'hallucinating.'

As I said this thread is over and should in the future you decide to have a civil conversation I'll happily engage.

You said it makes sense to put something in terms of a ratio even though they are uncorrelated except for a binary neccesity. That's like saying movies need sound and movies make money so let's measure movies by volume to dollars. It is literally broken logic.

You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.

> You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.

Of course, because I'm here to have an interesting conversation about an idea on its own merits, not be accused of hallucinating when you misinterpret something I've said. If you stop attacking the speaker, assumed some good faith, and have a civil conversation I suspect you'd have a better time.

Normally I have much more tolerance for shenanigans but you've demonstrated a pattern in our interactions.

I think if you had something of substance to say backing up what you originally said, you would have said it already instead of constantly calling yourself a victim as a diversion.

Nope, the last time I engaged after you descended to name calling was totally unproductive.

There hasn't been any name calling, this is all a diversion to avoid backing up the initial claims you made.