This is extraordinary stuff.
You have just forfeit your right to call anyone else’s writing turgid by your use of “controvert” in the face of perfect Anglo-Saxon alternatives. I am confident that you are familiar with the word “deny”, for example.
Sadly, I must relinquish the gold star I won in the pointless Latinate/Greek word contest over to you. Euge.
This thread became even more puerile after your prompting. At least before, it was an honest exchange of opinion by people without your unmerited philosophical pretenses. It is clear that you enjoy talking about ideas. This is laudatory and I am proud of you. But it is not clear that you actually can; name dropping ancient philosophers does not elevate the discussion but pejorates it and confuses the very people you seem to want to educate. A chimp can read Nietzsche.
I may in fact be no better than a pretentious second rate undergraduate. But at least I read the books assigned in class and engage with the ideas in a genuine way. Most importantly, I more or less get what I am talking about right. You, on the other hand, could not tell if I was with Seneca or against him. You further concocted a risible commentary on a philosophy you couldn’t manage to make sense of even with all of the resources of the internet at your disposal. It is entirely possible that I express myself like someone whose knowledge is no deeper than the Stanford Encyclopedia. But for all of your authoritative-sounding rhetoric, you can’t even manage that. POE “gambits” indeed. You are an empty vessel.
I regret that I used hostile language in arguing with you. I regret more that I even bothered to engage you in the first place. I can and do talk about the authors any time I like with my friend who edits critical editions of Seneca. But I talked about it here because I actually thought someone might be interested. I should have known that I would be set up for ridicule and discussion in bad faith. I am relieved that your clumsy and inept mockery has not exactly shaken my foundation.
