Just think of what you are saying in any other scenario.
I say that I am the president of the USA and proceed to give a series of unusual directives (such as "replace all the books in your library with phrenology text books or face the consequences"). I employ an unending series of special pleadings to explain what I am doing on sciforums and why I have chosen to confront you with these directives I want you to abide by.
The point is whether you can dismiss the claim that you are the president of the USA by saying "well at least the President would abstain from writing such nonsense on an online media platform" or some such.
If the President, or more specifically
your concept of the President (and thus removing it from issues of actual knowledge of the actual President), is one where the President is actually capable of such then your dismissal is fallacious.
If the President does X and you say that they should at least be able to do Y, but doing X is actually within their capability, then not doing Y is no proof, evidence, nor even valid argument dismissing the claim.
P1: the President can do X or not-X
P2: the President is not doing X
C1: the person not doing X can not be the president.
Do you not see even yet how your dismissal, your C1, is fallacious.
And before you go on about knowledge, this relies on no knowledge whatsoever.
It merely relies on the premises that you bring to the table.
Whether it actually relates to the President, whether the premises are true (knowledge) or not, is irrelevant to the fallacious nature of the conclusion you reach.
Of course, bring in knowledge to be able to dismiss the claim, I have never said otherwise.
The issue I raised was your very specific dismissal of Capracus' claim to be God simply because, as you wrote in post #2 of this thread: "
At the very least, one would hope an omnimax personalty would be capable of holding their own on an online discussion forum."
That really should be the end of the story.
But for some reason you keep harping on about irrelevancies, leading to misunderstandings on your part, instead of actually addressing that issue.
Two questions : <snip for irrelevancy
The rest of your post is irrelevant (as have been most of your responses) as it is based on your continuing misunderstanding to the point I raised, deliberate or otherwise.