Maybe the posting just mysteriously disappeared into the abyss.

Did your post contain a Star Trek image?

No, just text! If it can no longer be traced by the moderator I'll just put it down to 'one of those things'! :)

The only way to find out is by asking, as you've done. I deleted your discussion because the opening post was so badly written that it was unintelligible, as the responses you received made clear. I'm sorry to say that your posts are generally so verbose that they read like gibberish.

Well, there really is nothing like constructive advice - and that reply of yours was indeed really nothing like that but instead rather a clueless example of an inability to distinguish between simplicity and simplicitude in the context of written English - together with a not very convincing display of sorrow at having gotten the opportunity to vent an apparantly cumulative petty annoyance at my writing style! All the same though, reckon in future I'd be better leaving The Philosophy Forums to others more suited to meeting those particular standards of linguistic proficiency seeming peculiar to your erudite good self - even if such standards be known only unto the likes of yourself and are partly responsible for sites like these being regarded privately among professional philosophers as a bit of a joke! - Like posting to this groundhog-day site so as to avoid falling asleep on the train back home from work's a big deal! And ultimately - Who gives anyway? - Bye! :)

Don't leave, Robert. I like your posts, for what it's worth (Y)

Heister: I'm not saying jamalrob 'necessarily' made a bad move there or anything - he sounded broken-hearted enough with no hint of gratuitisnous at all :) at being reluctantly forced to inform me, doubtles for my own good, that my posts were "generally gibberish" - but yet I tell you solemnly, for that remark of yours, all thy sins they are forgiven! :)

I wouldn't like you to leave on bad terms like that, particularly as I don't think the issue is necessarily intractable. To me it seems to be mostly that you are not considering the reader when you write. With an OP, the idea is to clearly express an idea for others to grapple with. And your style has not been conducive to that. It's not like the Shoutbox where little is at stake and posters are fairly free to self-indulge. For example, few seem to appreciate and even fewer understand quine's cryptic comments there, but we don't moderate them because there's nothing at stake - there isn't a coherent discussion that the comments need to give birth to. But with an OP, that development is the whole point, and if you confuse people too much, it's unlikely to take place. As a result, the discussion is likely to get deleted. To put it another way, your style tends to obscure your meaning, which is the opposite of what is expected in a good OP. That expectation is not going to change, so in order to write a successful OP, you would have to modify your style.

Baden: I don’t want to protract this thing, though your comments are more constructive. However here for reference is the post at issue that was removed, it having been initially made by me in reply to a previous request by a member asking that I clarify the post preceding it. - Let me say at the outset I’m not quoting this post in order to argue it’s unsusceptible to improvement or anything like that, but rather because I think it serves as an example of how, given its’ subject matter, it doesn’t really contain much scope for the kind of simplification of language which you advise without the language then becoming a vehicle inadequate to expressing the matter I am attempting to discuss:

“Metaphysician Undercover: An adequate summary of the argument is –
‘From the position of a putative creator god, it would constitute an inherent contradiction to assume an attitude of justifiably being able to require of human beings the comprehension and thereby acceptance of a situation ordained for them which in reality was objectively unacceptable and consequently incomprehensible. Accordingly, were our human situation validly found in reality to be objectively unacceptable then such an observation would effectively disprove the possibility of our condition being authored by a Creator God. However the proposition that our human situation actually is in reality objectively unacceptable could not in principle be verified by any process of theoretical reasoning and in practice could be pragmatically agreed among individuals only by reference to their common life experience.’

-Whereas someone else might well express the argument more clearly nonetheless I can’t see anything unduly obscure about it!” (End of quote).

Certainly since - let’s face it – there aren’t too many grammarians in the habit of posting to PF (the standard of language’s so poor at times the sense is near uninterpretable) I am then puzzled as to how in such a context the language in each of my two posts was judged ‘so badly written’ as to merit deletion. Nevertheless since that was the candid opinion of the moderator concerned, both regarding these two recent posts of mine and also my posts historically – my view being that though my posts aint perfect nonetheless that this opinion stems from a confusion of simplicity with simplicitude – there wouldn’t thus seem much mileage in me trying to contribute further to PF. So whilst I’ve enjoyed my sojourn here, guess it’s time for both of us to call it a day!

I'll weigh in here as a third moderator. I can tell you that none of this has been discussed beforehand and we're not all so cozy with one another that we just line up behind one another and support one another's decisions.

Your problem isn't grammar. It's coherence. Your problem isn't form. It's substance. You make no sense. The irony is that you claim the confusion all forms around our inability to distinguish between "simplicity" and "simplicitude." Such is ironic because the latter appears to be a word you made up. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simplicitude

-Seems I'm an irredeemably damned soul indeed! (- And btw what a model of graceful articulacy that first para of yours is!) :) Anyway, my old Collins Dictionary offers either 'simplicitude' or 'simplism' - both having the same meaning so hopefully I'm saved from having to fall on my sword!
Speaking of irony, whereas jamalrob at least made it clear it was my verbosity he was so enthusiastically knocking, it’s unclear from the insufficiently precise manner in which the objections in the second paragraph of your own post are phrased whether you are taking exception towards what you consider to be the incoherent manner in which I typically express myself – a justifiable objection were the accusation accurate – or whether perhaps your objection is towards what you personally judge to be a typical lack of logical consistency in the substance of my arguments, the latter judgment being of course, at least in principle, one which might admit of various verdicts – and please don’t try say it should be obvious which meaning you intended, or that you intended both meanings, blah, blah – but just accept that the precise meaning you did intend is obvious only unto your good self and learn then regarding the clarity of your writing to practice what you so patronisingly preach!

As to the post that initially stimulated all this bizarre indignation? Well, despite the absurdity of it being deleted I’m confident of its presentability – both in terms of its form (tolerable if improvable) and particularly its content. Other than serving to remind me never to over-estimate an audience (certainly not this one at any rate!) I realise that the fact it has apparently defeated the capacity of some, including your good self, is a matter I’ve wasted too much time trying to remedy already. - So Bye finally!

NB. In order to while away the dreary train journey home from work now that I've divorced myself from PF and so am unable to avail myself of the distraction of posting, guess I'll need to return to my old habit of perusing the racing section of the newspaper. - Assuming no hard feelings, don't suppose anyone could start me off with a good horse tip? :)

Assuming no hard feelings, don't suppose anyone could start me off with a good horse tip? — Robert Lockhart

Bet on the fastest one.

At last - at this final cathartic moment - PF has delivered the true enlightenment which all these years I have laboured to acquire and through which I will doubtless profit in future! - I take it all back! ;)

Anyway, my old Collins Dictionary offers either 'simplicitude' or 'simplism' - both having the same meaning so hopefully I'm saved from having to fall on my sword! — Robert Lockhart

Nope. Even the online Collins dictionary indicates "simpicitude" isn't a word. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/spellcheck/english?q=simplicitude

How's your French, Hanover?

Simplicitude is French for simplicity.

Charlie est l'auteur de plusieurs chansons qu'il a interprétées et chantées au sein du groupe Les Silver D'argent où il jouait également de la batterie. En voici quelques-unes extraites des albums "Simpicitude" (ed. Rififi) et "Laver les Saucisses" (ed. Sarah).

Charlie is the author of several songs that he interpreted and sung within the group Silver Silver where he also played the drums. Here are a few extracts from the albums " Simpicitude " (ed Rififi) and "Laver les Sausages" (Saravah ed.).

What risqué meaning "Laver les Sausages" (Wash the Sausages) might have would require a field trip to Paris.

English was inseminated with so much French by William the Conqueror, (1066) that I think we need not flinch so much when we see a French noun picked up by a modern English writer. You can say "Quisinart" can't you? Cafe? Merde?

Well Robert, in terms of your answer, which while the contrary of which would have been more of a welcome alternative on which I was hoping to, so to speak, lay my fingers - fingers which I may add have been, while not exactly at the ready for such an occasion, at least to some degree anticipatory of becoming engaged in the activity of responsiveness - I nevertheless acquiesce to your acquiescence of the situation at hand, which does show on your part some level of - if not exactly acceptance of our justifications of the case - an understanding at least of the nature of its mutual intransigence from our respective viewpoints.

In short, good luck.

(And no, "simplicitude" is not a word, but maybe stick a fiver on her for the next National! ;))

Simplicitude is French for simplicity. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for the clarification. I am now to understand RL's distinction between simplicity in English and simplicity in French. The latter being more refined I suppose. The harshest and least refined simplicity is Einfachheit I'd think.

Only it's not. The French for "simplicity" is "simplicité". This is possibly why @Bitter Crank prefaced his claim with "How's your French Hanover"? ;)

“Metaphysician Undercover: An adequate summary of the argument is – — Robert Lockhart

No offence Robert, but I found your extraordinarily long and convoluted sentences exceedingly difficult to understand.



Lol. Le Francais en simplicitude. Laver les sausages.

From the position of a putative creator god, it would constitute an inherent contradiction to assume an attitude of justifiably being able to require of human beings the comprehension and thereby acceptance of a situation ordained for them which in reality was objectively unacceptable and consequently incomprehensible. — Robert Lockhart

Can anyone work out what this means?

I'll have a stab at it. Maybe something like this:

"Given that the human condition is unacceptable, it is contradictory for God to have created this condition and at the same time to expect us to accept it."

Am I close, Robert?

"It would be a contradiction for God to justifiably require humans to understand (and therefore accept) a situation imposed upon them which is unacceptable (and therefore incomprehensible)."

I think that the original quote is an example of using lots of words to say very little. For me, as a reader, it is more hard work than it needs to be, or ought to be. You'll score more points in my book for clarity, relevance and succinctness, than you will for grandiloquence, digression or lack of substance.

Your rewording is much better, jamalrob. And Baden has done a good job of illustrating the problem with this style of writing to which Robert is seemingly so attached. I think that he should take heed, and take this constructive criticism on board.

Personally, I still find the guy Who writes Like This to be More Annoying.

I also don't think that the conclusions in brackets follow, but it's hard to be sure when there is so much vagueness in what he said - although it is out of context.

I think you've missed a moral dimension. Robert seemed to want to name God as unjust.

It's not just a creator of the unacceptable human condition is producing a contradiction, it is unjust. God isn't just saying: "2+2=5" in an abstracted numbers game.The of creating humanity is forcing injustice on them all.

God isn't just a fool. God is, at best, culpably negligent. At worst, God is a sadistic monster, who deliberately gave humans their unacceptable (and unjust) condition.

think you've missed a moral dimension. Robert seemed to want to name God as unjust. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But doesn't this just clarify the general objection to his posts: nobody is completely sure what he means.

I'm pretty sure he meant the bit about not coming back. In which case the horse has bolted, and there's not much point playing around with the stable door.

Hey Mac, let me take a whack at it...

"It would be a contradiction from god's perspective to expect humans to understand why he makes them suffer..."

That's how I decipher it...

Wait a minute...