The Sâmkhya’s law states that:
As a cyberphilosophical discussion grows, the probability of one being insulted on the ground that he is ignorant approaches (1).
Lol… if one of the people in that argument is Siatd I’d say the slope of the limit is multiplied by… 42.
On the grounds I’m not sure if you’re just trying to be funny or not, I’ll say you’re correct, thus it is funny - yet you’re missing something if you’re being serious:
As a cyberphilosophical discussion grows, the probability of one being [wrong and consequently being] insulted on the ground that he is ignorant approaches (1).
This would be more accurate in my view.
There should be no link between one being wrong (and besides, the two may be wrong…) and one being insulted. It’s a basic rule of courtesy…
Besides, I don’t see either the link between one being wrong and one being ignorant. The two debaters may have read as many books, but they don’t interpret them in the same way, hence the discussion.
Well said, Sâmkhya.
The longer one spends talking to stupid people, the more likely you are to insult them for it…
Gobbo, your average contribution to this forum is to say ‘yeah, I think like that too’ and other similarly empty-headed crap. As I said, when you contribute something to the Philosophy forum that is worth reading I’ll have some respect for you.
This is where you come back and say ‘I don’t care what you think of me’ despite talking about me here for no good reason…
God you’re predictable 
As I said Gobbo, I’d rather be intelligent and have the choice of being predictable than be thick as a floor as be predictable by default…
So you choose to be predictable now…
I would think you woulda had a better reponse to something so you clearly thought out ahead of time.
I guess that’s just me and my… default predictability