> >If you are unable to provide any examples of what you say you mean, I > >take leave to doubt that you know what you mean, or that you mean > >anything at all. > > Who says I'm unable
I did not say you could not, only that you have not.
> and why can't the general claim itself be > evaluated without exemplification?
Because I have no idea what your "general claim" is claiming.
> If we can't agree on the general > proposition we're certainly not going to be able to agree on > particular examples.
Your "general propsition" seems to be an assertion that somethings exists, but your description of what those somethings are amorphous.
> I've noticed a common tendency with those unable > to argue effectively against a general proposition to demand examples > so they can argue ad nauseum about those instead.
I am not "arguing against it", I am merely refusing to accept what I do not understand. if you expect acceptance from me, it is your job to make your position clear.
> My impression is > that you want to deny that alternatives to universal falseness would > perforce be universally true so as to reject any implicit possibility > of universal truth but don't know how to proceed and need examples to > argue about instead.
My impression is that agreeing that "alternatives to universal falseness would perforce be universally true" requires agreement on at least what "universal falseness" means and what "universal truth" means, and I have no referents for either.