Randomex:
My first statement was before I knew your standards. In the process of making your standards known you advanced invalid claims. You said that you shouldn’t be expected to have read posts that predate you. I provided two reasons why your claim was invalid: 1)According to your logic, I shouldn’t be expected to know any Torah 2)You have in fact referenced posts that predate you. You attempted to trip me up by pointing out that I quote from the “great writings of Shas and Poskim” yet presumably I don’t know it all. I assume that was to counteract my second point by showing that the fact that someone quotes from a given corpus doesn’t mean that they know it in its entirety. But all I was doing was pointing out that the mere fact that something predates you is not inherently an excuse for not knowing it, which would apply to Shas and Poskim as well, so your point didn’t prove anything because I never claimed that I don’t know Shas and Poskim BECAUSE it predates me – I had merely pointed out that according to your excuse I should have an excuse too which I obviously don’t, hence your excuse must be invalid. Then you kind of admitted that you really meant that the corpus of coffee room posts that predate you is too vast to master, but rejoined that the corpus of current posts is also too vast, hence the age of the post is completely irrelevant.
So in other words, you could have just countered my original claim by saying that you can’t be expected to read every post in the coffee room and then we could have gone back to telling jokes.