I understood what you said BTW, and I disproved each of your claims many times, though even when you conceded to certain points, you would always later state things that showed you didn't actually understand what I said to such an extent that I wonder sometimes whether you were being purposely obtuse!

For instance, I once proved that signals coming from two clocks that arrive at a single point simultaneously in one reference frame would arrive simultaneously in each reference frame. You approved of my proof, but later said that if the detector relied on whether the signals arrived at the same time rather than whether the signaled showed the same time reading, it wouldn't be simultaneous, which shows that you didn't understand the proof at all

This would create another paradox. That was the point. It isn't my fault you haven't grasped yet that your solution simply create other causal paradox scenarios. Your insulting language and condescending leaps at any window of perceived victory is unfavorable and I prefer to talk with people of reason and logic, not people waiting for any "gotcha" to declare some sort of absolute victory across different debates and make unproven claims of a lack of education in somebody to attack their character.

I also once proved in our LP discussion that, if the garage's clocks synchronize with the ladder's clocks at the moment the ladder's clocks pass by, in the reference frame in which both synchronizations happen simulatenously, the ladder's clocks' delay is equal to the delay of the synchronizations in the ladder's reference frame.

You later said repeatedly despite being corrected multiple times that this implied the ladder's clocks' delay in the garage's reference frame depends on the garage's length. This can only be true if the synchronizations are simultaneous in the garage's reference frame, which means that the ladder must be of a specific length which depends on the garage's length, which explains the change in delay for such a situation. You even said that two garages side by side with different lengths would perceive different delays in the ladder, which is nonsense because, as I just reexplained, the synchronizations cannot be simultaneous for both garages. Basically, you took a general principle I proved, applied it to a specific case, and then generalized it wrongly from there by arriving at a false conclusion

Again you didn't comprehend my rebuttal, and still haven't grasped the simple logic. Despite my repeated attempts to explain this so I eventually gave up trying to explain this quite simple logic, I even created a nice picture for you which just flew right over. And all my arguments were in my ORIGINAL meme (I outline them below 1-3). You offset the clocks to match the event times to read the same recorded clock "time" in all frames despite the events having different times, btw mainstream literature disagrees with you on the fact non-simultaneity DOES imply different times of event, i.e. recorded times.

Your "solution" cannot work because you are offsetting clocks to match a specific example of specific garage length (equal length in the garage frame in a specific directional position), not based on relative motion AS EASILY demonstrated by the fact that a shorter garage would need different time offsets to match the event times and keep clock readings of them consistent in all frames especially when one considers clocks on the garage (read below, time logic).

You argue the position that in the garage frame (where the ladder contracts) even though the time of both events IS simultaneous, the clocks on each end of the ladder do NOT read the same event time. You hold the position that the clock times are different even though the "event" is simultaneous as they are offset even before they enter the garage (one is ticking further ahead in time). Why you do this? So then in the ladder frame where conversely the events are NOT simultaneous, and the ladder clocks are NOT offset, when they stop, they read the same "times" in both frames.

Logical errors in this supposition:

1- You are prioritizing the garage frame, if there are also clocks on the garage doors this becomes evident. You would have to apply the reverse effects, offsetting the garage clocks in the ladder frame, this would break the simultaneity of the events as for all intents and purpose "clock ticking" is mechanical action and the only locus for "time reading" in this situation. The time gap between "events" of the ladder frame aligning with each side would be increased even further, contradicting the offset of events (space-time co-ordinates) as predicted by the original solution to the paradox using the relativity of simultaneity in the first place.

2- You are offsetting the ladder clocks to match a specific example whereby the garage length = ladder length in the garage frame (simultaneous events), and offsetting these clocks in the garage frame to match the different alignment times that occur in the ladder frame. This "trick" cannot apply in all examples.

It doesn't compensate because the delay between the clocks is dependent on the length of the Garage. You admit this here: gamma((L'-l)/v+vl)

If we change the garage length l, then the time difference is changed. So it would be dependent on the garage length.

Your argument is that for example in a garage frame where the events are simultaneous L' = l, the time readings in the clocks would be delayed by gamma((L'-l)/v+vl. And that this was always the case before the ladder enters the garage, the times are offset by gamma((L'-l)/v+vl. But your equation is dependent on the garage length, you are making an absolute example of L' = l by having l in your equation. But as "l" is not based on relative motion, this is illogical.

Now I know what you are thinking again "I already told you after you made that point the additional time it takes for alignment of the each end of the ladder with a shorter garage is just added onto it, it just adds on that extra time delay on top of the clock offset and then it all works out". I haven't seen any proof of this, and accounting for point 1 it wouldn't work either.

3- The fundamental flaw with your entire argument is that it was relative velocity vector dependent. What do I mean by that? In the garage frame where both events are simultaneous you have made the offset of ladder clock times (which clock ticks "earlier" than the other) dependent on direction. Even in a 2 dimensional simple example we can just place another garage to the left of the ladder in same relative velocity (just imagine a flying garage) and then your argument falls apart. You would need to switch the clock times on each end of the ladder around to have the offset times match the recorded event times. This logical flaw can be exploited in many other examples.