A philosophical engagement of thought begins brought in part to the response however with a warning of this being a saturated and otherwise lengthy post.
Mostly this first begins as an introduction presenting the problem, discussing why the problem is a problem and the negative effects that are thus result from the problem's existence. One then continues to elaborate why the thought is negative through the use of both proper argumentative statements as well as sneaking a fallacy or two. Eventually having made the problem as clear as day one provides a suggestion to said problem going into detail as to solution's implementation. The solution's implementation can vary from being relatively simple or surprisingly complex but would otherwise not be able to be refereed as simply "putting a band aid on the problem". Continuing onward one then presents numbers which may or may not be relative to the implementation of the solution with possible accompaniment of a comparison with the existing problem thus further reinforcing why the implementation of the solution will alleviate if not eradicate the problem. The presentation of numbers could also be brought about in words almost as if algebraic in nature. The sum of unnecessary words + a large accumulation of disposable time = a distraction that is being entertained rather than discarded or avoided. Before one draws into the conclusion however having been distracted by some other task they forget their location and continue elsewhere unaware that the rest of the statement is rather a repeat, if albeit a rearrangement of the previous statements and sentences, perhaps three variations mixed in order.
In most scenarios the beginning is brought about by describing the problem in its existence, why a problem is one and the consequences that arise from the problem. The post then expands on the negative points of the previous post and dismisses it via loud vocal and typed shouting as well as name calling. Having made one's stance clear, one provides a solution the provider deems impecable but is rather flawed. The flawed argument is provided lacking correct mathematical equations without any supporting structure from existing models while failing to provide a model that would otherwise support the proposed implementation. The argument would fail to provide any meaningful statement and thus only served to stress and troll. However before one continues onward the reader realises the typer of the post simply typed a varied argument from earlier that was dismissed just simply rearranged in a total of three ways.
Usually we start to begin our discussion by pointing out why the other person's post would not provide a solution to the existing headache. The rant then continues onward without conclusion. Once they have expunged their negative thoughts, the poster provides a somewhat emotionally charged counterargument filled with fallacies. While the argument holds some merits it is nevertheless flawed by their emotions which have rendered the original poster blind of the kinks in their argument. The poster might attempt to use incorrect models to cover the problem but it is nevertheless present. The argument, while it may garner some appraisal, is voided by another poster pointing out the flaws of said statement. As one prepares to reach the conclusion of the statement they find they have actually been reading the same sentences not twice but thrice in different variations and mixed orders.
In most scenarios the beginning is brought about by describing the problem in its existence, why a problem is one and the consequences that arise from the problem. The post then expands on the negative points of the previous post and dismisses it via loud vocal and typed shouting as well as name calling. Having made one's stance clear, one provides a solution the provider deems impecable but is rather flawed. The flawed argument is provided lacking correct mathematical equations without any supporting structure from existing models while failing to provide a model that would otherwise support the proposed implementation. The argument would fail to provide any meaningful statement and thus only served to stress and troll. However before one continues onward the reader realises the typer of the post simply typed a varied argument from earlier that was dismissed just simply rearranged in a total of three ways.
Usually we start to begin our discussion by pointing out why the other person's post would not provide a solution to the existing headache. The rant then continues onward without conclusion. Once they have expunged their negative thoughts, the poster provides a somewhat emotionally charged counterargument filled with fallacies. While the argument holds some merits it is nevertheless flawed by their emotions which have rendered the original poster blind of the kinks in their argument. The poster might attempt to use incorrect models to cover the problem but it is nevertheless present. The argument, while it may garner some appraisal, is voided by another poster pointing out the flaws of said statement. As one prepares to reach the conclusion of the statement they find they have actually been reading the same sentences not twice but thrice in different variations and mixed orders.
Mostly this first begins as an introduction presenting the problem, discussing why the problem is a problem and the negative effects that are thus result from the problem's existence. One then continues to elaborate why the thought is negative through the use of both proper argumentative statements as well as sneaking a fallacy or two. Eventually having made the problem as clear as day one provides a suggestion to said problem going into detail as to solution's implementation. The solution's implementation can vary from being relatively simple or surprisingly complex but would otherwise not be able to be refereed as simply "putting a band aid on the problem". Continuing onward one then presents numbers which may or may not be relative to the implementation of the solution with possible accompaniment of a comparison with the existing problem thus further reinforcing why the implementation of the solution will alleviate if not eradicate the problem. The presentation of numbers could also be brought about in words almost as if algebraic in nature. The sum of unnecessary words + a large accumulation of disposable time = a distraction that is being entertained rather than discarded or avoided. Before one draws into the conclusion however having been distracted by some other task they forget their location and continue elsewhere unaware that the rest of the statement is rather a repeat, if albeit a rearrangement of the previous statements and sentences, perhaps three variations mixed in order.
In most scenarios the beginning is brought about by describing the problem in its existence, why a problem is one and the consequences that arise from the problem. The post then expands on the negative points of the previous post and dismisses it via loud vocal and typed shouting as well as name calling. Having made one's stance clear, one provides a solution the provider deems impecable but is rather flawed. The flawed argument is provided lacking correct mathematical equations without any supporting structure from existing models while failing to provide a model that would otherwise support the proposed implementation. The argument would fail to provide any meaningful statement and thus only served to stress and troll. However before one continues onward the reader realises the typer of the post simply typed a varied argument from earlier that was dismissed just simply rearranged in a total of three ways.
Having finally reachd the conclusion of the statement the poster finds via another tab that the discussion has been silenced due to the realocation of said thread discussion by the moderating team of the forums.
This is however usually followed by the simplification of the lengthy post easily spotted by the use of four capital letters divided in half by a semicolon usually seen as TL;DR but can also be seen as ES;SI (extensive statement; skipped inference)
This was a long pointless post not finished in time before thread was relocated.
welcome to the club.
