SanDyk Posted:

So if I don’t follow the rules (since following the rules is doing something) then it wouldn’t be bannable?

Most of the site rules involve a restriction on a prohibited action. Therefore, not following the site rules would most likely involve taking an action that was prohibited. So, your point is essentially saying “What if I don’t not take a prohibited action”, and since that’s a double negative, it’s a faulty argument.

But you knew that, of course.

male reproductive organFACEPANTS Posted:

Check and mate. After seeing this post, I would stop trying to defend a position I know is indefensible and admit I’ve made a mistake.

So how about it, Catt? Admitting you made a mistake will actually improve your position (because not admitting you made a mistake and continuing to make these asinine defenses will only make you look stupider)

Um, except I wasn’t the one who banned that one.

SanDyk Posted:

In a grammar sense, no you shouldn’t use double negatives. However you’re mixing up rules of logic with rules of grammar. A double negative in logic is totally valid. If you were to use YOUR logic on simple mathematics would you say that (2) – (-2) is invalid because there is a double negative? No it isn’t but you knew that already right?

Violating forum rules requires an action to occur.

Following forum rules does NOT require an action to occur.

I’m not sure why you’re mixing grammatical rules & mathematical rules. It’s not proving your point.

SanDyk Posted:

I’m saying that what I’m saying isn’t incorrect just because the grammar is invalid

You’re saying that ‘not following site rules’ is the same as ‘not doing something’. And I understand your interpretation.

However, the context in which I originally made that statement was referring to ’not taking an action’ specifically. Your current argument is based upon taking the phrase that I used out of it’s original context. Whether you’re doing so out of ignorance or deliberateness isn’t 100% clear, but knowing you, I’m inclined to believe the latter. In either case, this is a sufficient explanation & clarification.