Correction, I have no problem. Your the one with questions, not me.
Actually, if you keep acting like this, you'll get your nose rubbed in those problems you think you don't have, and and it won't be by me.
I will not discuss this further and the case is closedas far as I'm concerned since I was replying to a large number of forum members simultaneously. It is not physically possible to reply to all. I select those which I believe are most appropriate to answer, and to me your grasshopper questions are now not the most appropriate to answer in this thread. The case maybe open for you and others, "among yourselves" but as no one can force me to answer any additional question on that topic, I choose to exercise my right to move on.
Got it, you wanted a 'win' and once you got one, you lost interest in the subject. Well, as you say, I can't force you to respond, but you need to dial the attitude back quite a lot, for your own good. Because right now, you come across a lot more like a troll to me than Nam ever did.
However, because of your attempt to effectively "demand" an answer, I now blatantly refuse to give you any further communication on this topic as a matter of principle, regardless - as I do not appreciate being dictated to. I want serious discussion, not a "atheist coup" for who answers what, when and how.
If you wanted a serious discussion, you wouldn't try to claim 'wins' over the whole forum because of what one person said. Just exactly how do you think that kind of thing comes across? There were several people involved in that discussion when you arbitrarily declared that the case was closed, effectively telling each and every one of them that you weren't interested in anything they had to say, you were just interested in validating what you already believed to be true.
Consider what happened as a result. Two days and sixty-plus posts later, you're still having to deal with people pressing you on the subject. You not only failed to close the subject, you actually got other people (like me) involved in it. Worse than that, you attempted to deal with those additional questions and points by simply repeating yourself about how one member sorta-kinda agreed with you and that meant the case was closed. It didn't really work out very well, did it?
I suspect a number of the people involved in this topic are fairly well convinced that you're not interested in discussion or engaging differing opinions, but merely 'proving' that what you already believe is true. The way to change that is not to draw lines in the sand, nor tell people that you're absolutely definitely not responding to them again on a subject, nor retaliate against people with profanity and insults. That doesn't mean you have to exercise infinite patience or respond to every single point raised on an issue, but it does mean you need to keep your cool.
There's an easy way you could have tabled the discussion about insect legs without coming across as condescending or insulting. I even touched on it early on; the point of that section of Leviticus was to state what was clean and unclean. It was not about providing precise taxonomical descriptions of clean and unclean organisms, it was to make sure they had a good enough idea of what to look for so they could avoid becoming unclean. If you had done something along those lines, it would have been much more reasonable - people here tend to respect opinions, even ones they don't totally agree with, so long as the person presenting those opinions doesn't come across as a jerk.