@Eris no you claimed I'm not reasonable because I'm snarky. I asked you to look up the definition, so that you at least realize that it is possible to be both snarky and reasonable and not at all to deny that I'm snarky.

@AR-15 @bonifartius

@namark @AR-15 @bonifartius
> so that you at least realize that it is possible to be both snarky and reasonable
They are in fact mutually exclusive, and in this particular instance your snark is a method for avoiding being reasonable. It's your way of deflecting.

@Eris nice job not looking up the meanings of the words...

@AR-15 @bonifartius

@namark @AR-15 @bonifartius

Please give me an example of reasonable snark.

@Eris here I looked up the definition of snark for you
>an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm.

If you are honestly claiming that it is impossible to speak mockingly while also expressing reason, the I don't know if any examples can convince you. One would be when I say that you can't read, you obviously can read, I jest, what I'm expressing is that you are missing my point.

@AR-15 @bonifartius

@namark @AR-15 @bonifartius
>If you are honestly claiming that it is impossible to speak mockingly while also expressing reason
Not only am I claiming that, I am shocked that you find that to be a claim at all.
>the I don't know if any examples can convince you.
Try one and find out.

@Eris I just did? How much more proof do you need of your inability to read?

@AR-15 @bonifartius

@namark @AR-15 @bonifartius
> I just did?
You did it again. You just say you did it, without ever doing it.

@Eris

> One would be when I say that you can't read, you obviously can read, I jest, what I'm expressing is that you are missing my point.

one would be, as in one example would be, just read

@AR-15 @bonifartius

@namark @AR-15 @bonifartius
>you obviously can read, I jest,
Yes, exactly. Stop doing that.
What point am I missing?
>what I'm expressing is that you are missing my point.
You never say what the point is though.

@Eris

> Yes, exactly. Stop doing that.
I will not, and that has nothing to do with reason.

> You never say what the point is though.
The original point in my reply to OP, that you reuse to address even though I keep pointing it out.

@AR-15 @bonifartius

@namark @AR-15 @bonifartius

>I will not, and that has nothing to do with reason.
"I will not be reasonable with you" is being unreasonable.
>The original point in my reply to OP, that you reuse to address even though I keep pointing it out.
Yes, what is that?

@namark @Eris @bonifartius You have not once stated the point directly. You keep contradicting some of it and alluding to it but never elaborating on what you actually mean. You're not actually smart enough to play this game. Please go home and consider suicide.

@namark @Eris @bonifartius Definitions have many names, and none of them matter. Names are not important. To speak is to name names, but to speak is not important. A thing happens once that has never happened before. Seeing it, a man looks upon reality. He cannot tell others what he has seen. Others wish to know, however, so the question him saying, 'What is it like, this thing you have seen?' So he tries to tell them. Perhaps he has seen the very first fire in the world. He tells them, 'It is red, like a poppy, but through it dance other colors. It has no form, like water, flowing everywhere. It is warm, like the sun of summer, only warmer. It exists for a time upon a piece of wood, and then the wood is gone, as though it were eaten, leaving behind that which is black and can be sifted like sand. When the wood is gone, it too is gone.' Therefore, the hearers must think reality is like a poppy, like water, like the sun, like that which eats and excretes. They think it is like to anything that they are told it is like by the man who has known it. But they have not looked upon fire. They cannot really know it. They can only know of it. But fire comes again into the world, many times. More men look upon fire. After a time, fire is as common as grass and clouds and the air they breathe. They see that, while it is like a poppy, it is not a poppy, while it is like water, it is not water, while it is like the sun, it is not the sun, and while it is like that which eats and passes wastes, it is not that which eats and passes wastes, but something different from each of these apart or all of these together. So they look upon this new thing and they make a new word to call it. They call it 'fire.'
If they come upon one who still has not seen it and they speak to him of fire, he does not know what they mean. So they, in turn, fall back upon telling him what fire is like. As they do so, they know from their own experience that what they are telling him is not the truth, but only part of it. They know that this man will never know reality from their words, though all the words in the world are theirs to use. He must look upon the fire, smell of it, warm his hands by it, stare into its heart, or remain forever ignorant. Therefore, 'fire' does not matter, 'earth' and 'air' and 'water' do not matter. 'I' do not matter. No word matter. But man forgets reality and remembers words. The more words he remembers, the cleverer do his fellows esteem him. He looks upon the great transformations of the world, but he does not see them as they were seen when man looked upon reality for the first time. Their names come to his lips and he smiles as he tastes them, thinking he knows them in the naming. The thing that has never happened before is still happening. It is still a miracle. The great burning blossom squats, flowing, upon the limb of the world, excreting the ash of the world, and being none of these things I have named and at the same time all of them, and this is reality-the Nameless.