It seems that every time I say something, you feel the need to parrot it back, except that you often get it wrong in a way that shows you just don't get it. For example, after I described a couple of your bogus arguments as rhetorical tricks, you decided to call some of my words rhetoric, when they were simply ridicule. Now that I have found occasion to make a goldfish analogy, for some reason you seem compelled to also mention goldfish, but you do so in a way that quite obviously applies slightly (or exponentially, as you would put it) more to you than me.
This form of discourse, in which one party simply repeats back the claims of the other, as if they were applicable without having anything to support the reversal of attribution, might be called the "no, you are" style, on account of this being a phrase that is commonly used by its main adopters. As it happens, there is a video on that subject, and as you have repeatedly said how much amusement you get out of these exchanges, we can expect this will probably have you rolling on the floor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRx8PFdurgo
With regard to more substantive matters, I think you should know that if you post a link to a claim that was made without any supporting evidence or justification, it does not magically gain those things in consequence. On the other hand, links that did have those things originally retain them, so we can see that your earlier statement
"Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266387)
stands in contradiction to your later attempted rewrite
"The only claim I made was that your specific explanation (which you never actually wrote), which you said would include stack frames, machine addresses, and the like, would be much more complex than referring to C++, in my opinion." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9433742)
Just to be clear, you didn't try limiting it to a statement by me until after you had made the first statement and I pointed out its problems (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9269186), and not even then, immediately. Only after I showed that you couldn't explain it away as 'conversation' did you try to rewrite it as in the second quote above.
more significantly, you have refused to offer any justification for the phrase "because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all", which Eslaught demonstrated to be false, while you are apparently still claiming never to have been wrong.
I repeat my statement that I will present an explanation once you show the courage of your convictions by saying what, in your opinion, is wrong with Eslaught's straight-to-the-point explanation:
"Except you still have no way to modify the variable binding on the caller's stack. This is what all of us in the "Java is call-by-value" camp keep yammering on about: changing a value on the heap (an array or object in Java) is not the same as changing a variable on the stack (a local variable in Java). In Java, you can never touch local variables on parent functions' stacks, therefore, Java cannot be considered pass-by-reference."
You are trying to wriggle out of dealing with this one by making a distinction between "wrong" and "invalid", an act of desperation which underscores that you have run out of ideas. If Eslaught's statement is invalid, then it is wrong as a refutation of your original statement, but you have no argument for that however you choose to put it.
Of course, it is utterly self-serving for someone who tried to dismiss one of his bigger mistakes as 'conversation' to be pedantic over usage now.
One of the more revealing things in your responses are the points you try to ignore. In my previous post I showed that you had made a fundamental error in logic, which you have ignored, so we can add it to the list of mistakes you haven't made. That said, even though your logical error means that the example you gave there is not relevant in the way you claimed, it is worth looking at. As you yourself point out, Solipsism introduces C++ into the discussion and messes it up. That's the best example you can offer of how C++ simplifies the explanation? Really? It's obvious to anyone just how self-serving your arguments are.
Given your copycat tendencies, can we anticipate a video in your next reply? And will it be self-referential? The one thing we can be sure of is that there will be another reply.