Not precisely correct. There are a few who posts in response, so while it is largely unpopular, it's premature and myopic to conclude that the thread has been completely ignored. Furthermore, not posting but reading the contents could also means that it wasn't ignored, so if there's good chance that having such information available for reading, I wouldn't mind people not posting. I don't expect attention, I merely present information to those who would be interested.
Meaning that you have no basis on whether it works for people. I am also other people, so exactly what is the criteria required for it work so that I will fit into the category of the "various other people"?

Also, it appears you need a refresher course on this:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal


What is your basis for your lack of interest of discussing with me, other than the ones I have already refuted accordingly from my previous posts? I'm beginning to wonder that it is not only the lack, but also the apparent lack of basis itself.

By being selective on who you wish to discuss with, you have admitted that this is nothing but an echo chamber.
What is the rationale of you taking such an irrational decision, if not merely based on limited and biased data from your anecdotes of whom you must think I am, or what undesirable trait you assumed that I must have?

Also, the resposting of the posts that you have deleted serve more than just expecting a proper response. It allows the readers to understand if the reason behind your deletion, whether or not they think it's fair or not. And I think it's fair to allow readers to understand what has transpired instead of just deleting the entire post. Should you wish to not devote any of your efforts to respond to mine, here's an operator: "You can do the same thing without the need to remove the posts. All you have to do is to not reply to my posts. Or did you not know that such a simple alternative has actually existed before I told you about it?

================================================

And, here's the post that was deleted by Exoflare just now at 01:27 PM with a response that says: "Know your place" (you tell me if the teacher wasn't proposing an echo chamber as opposed to the "discussion" that was originally intended. In addition, it appears that this teacher may also have a superiority complex of sorts from the latest reason given for the deletion of my posts, or that he simply couldn't stand that his presumed intellectual superiority was somehow challenged into a corner, which I think are fair hypotheses from such a common behaviour):
================================================
No, assumptions don't hurt me, especially if being high was the only thing that was supposed to be seen credible in what you have said.

And, here's the post that was deleted by Exoflare yesterday at 03:34 PM, with a response that says: "Lol" (you tell me if the teacher wasn't proposing an echo chamber as opposed to the "discussion" that was originally intended):

The posts have also been arranged nicely into a spoiler so that it would look neater that way:

Except that those patterns are based on limited, bias data, and with a flawed logic to top it. To prove that I am right in this, all I have to is to utter that 1 + 1 =2, and that statement alone would have destroyed slippery slope fallacy that they must all lead to the same experience. In short, if you can't be sure what the future holds, the rational approach is not to fill that gap with an assumption with a such a claim.

Your inference is unfortunately, wrong, especially if the reasoning is as flimsy as "because I didn't like his previous arguments" to be the sole pattern of data that you wish to incorporate in your thought process.
Yes, but it's not the reason I was asking for, but for the one that was supposed to be in response to my critique about how that it is even called a "law", which you have addressed below.
Of which I have already addressed even such a noun wouldn't hold water, especially when you have actual physical laws that can make predictions based on the availability of scientific data. Perhaps you have conclusive evidence and the scientific data to prove that this "Law of Attraction" is also true and on how it should be called that way?
I read them alright, which is why I have to keep reminding you of the logical fallacies for each and every post that you have made in regards to it. I bother to read your posts, did you bother to read mine? What you've done for the past few posts are unfortunately your attempts to be coy with nonchalant one-liners, as if mask the confidence that you're not in any way personally affected.
Without evidence, and without rectification of the logical fallacies that its proponents like you has made.
You open a public forum asking for a discussion, not an echo chamber. Surely you're not serious to make the mistake to think that they're both the same thing, would you?
Ah, another ad hominem to discredit my views by going after my other posts that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you're referring to the LYN Transhumanism page, I am well aware that I am the person who posts the most in there, and I am well aware of the myopic judgments one can make in regards to such a action. The idea is not necessarily to get people to post in that thread, but also to serve as a signal boost for awareness, whether or not people post in there is a different matter altogether.
Which is why it's already prefaced as a hypothetical scenario, so calling it a theoretical model flatters nobody, and not even in a pretentious way.
Of course it does not necessarily correspond to experience. Have you forgotten what the word 'hypothetical' means? Since when it was supposed to correspond to an existing life experience?
Nobody said that you aren't, which is why I have also prefaced this by explicitly telling you that it is never an evaluation of your abilities nor any of your experiences. It was an invitation for you to participate in a thought-experiment that is not outside the realm of possibilities. It was prefaced "what-if", not that it's actually happening.
Only if you refused to understand how a discussion wasn't supposed to be an echo chamber. But thanks for your warning, I will now record our conversations just in case you delete on the basis of flawed reasoning, which I have pointed countless of times, of which you have yet to address them accordingly, fairly, and honestly, and without prejudice and bias.
On the contrary, it's never derailed, and it is still on the topic itself. On what basis do you think that it is "rubbish", should I hold you accountable to provide an explanation to the spirit of discussion?
Argument from assertion fallacy. Do you have anything to back them up?