could you comment on that text?
You will recall that I commented on that text in my initial response to the OP.
...before just flatly contradicting me without argument.
I haven't given any flat contradictions without argument, but rather offered argument at every juncture where argument was needed.
you're citing like 100 pages without saying how it's relevant...
No, I'm not, but rather identified its relevance from the outset: viz., that it's an argument defending objectivity, as against your claim that Kant denies objectivity.
It's hardly a weakness of my position that the central argument of the text is explicitly aimed at establishing the very converse of the position you attribute to Kant; i.e. that you've attributed to Kant the very converse of what a central argument in the text is directly opposed to, without even a vague allusion as to how to reconcile this attribution to the over content of the text.
...and you didn't say the edition...
I did: the citations I gave were following the standard practice of referring to the German critical edition, with B representing the second edition of Kant's text.
...and ignored me about giving useful cites.
I didn't ignore your request to provide citations for the arguments in question, but rather responded by providing those citations--you will recall that this is what we are presently discussing.
i have here two copies of the book which do not have the page numbers in the way you cite...
If that's true, then presumably you should acquire an edition of the book with the critical apparatus required for following citations in the standard format, if you'd like to discuss such things.
your unwillingness to quote anything...
I don't have any such unwillingness.
please do not edit your posts while/after i reply.
I've never edited any comment of mine after you've responded to it.
instead of sorting this mess out, can you reply to the material at the end of my part 3...
I already responded to this in my previous comment.
ask about if you have any rival interpretation of that Kant text? i don't believe i've yet gotten any reply to that main issue.
You will recall that I explained that passage from Kant in my original response to the OP.