Sadducees and Bethuselites

I didn't say you were a Sadducee,
1. I said that until today it seemed to me that such an approach is the Sadducean approach, the lack of acceptance of opinions/laws/rules that are passed down in the Masora from generation to generation by the Torah's moralists without any proof [kind of like what Hillel said to the stranger who wanted to learn written Torah and not just verbally, "Ali Didi Kasmach"]
2. It seems to me that you are Orthodox in the Halachic sense, and so where does the prohibition of a barrer on Shabbat come from, for example, what serious proof do we have for this, without the Masora

And how can we cut with a sharp knife what to accept in the Masora and what not

In short, just as you cut off the Rishonim from authority in the Masora, so the Sadducees cut off the Pharisees from the Masora
and how do we know that the Pharisees were indeed right?
Do we have proof of the Pharisees' rightness or are we just speculating?

As a Davidic speaker, you need to edit your Wikipedia entry and claim that you are testifying about yourself that you may be a Sadducee and a Baytushi.
Although I argued with a certain rabbi at the time about Rabbi Shalit, and I think he argued with me that as long as you say that there is no authority in matters of thought for the lineage of generations, then even if you have reached all the thirteen main points yourself, it means nothing. Because a significant part of the idea of the thirteen main points is tradition. And to understand that others are no less wise than me...

I am not discussing either the tradition or the rabbi at all, I am not busy allocating points, I am busy with definitions
I am trying to understand the difference [if there is one] between his approach and the approach of the Sadducees [for the little information I have about them at all]
Does something that has been accepted as true and part of the transmission of the Torah throughout generations among the moralists of the Torah [and we are not dealing with scientific facts of course] oblige me, or not, is there such a “formal” authority that is created by the moralists of the Torah throughout all generations
I wonder how I can actually accept even the written Torah, since it was also transmitted by those whose authority I do not accept

I didn't say you said I was a Sadducee. What I said is that the discussion of whether I am a Sadducee or not is not important to me. The question is what is correct, not what its proper title is.
What is inferred from the transmission from Sinai or from an authorized institution (Sanhedrin) is valid, and everything else, even if transmitted in tradition, is not valid. Very simple. It is not always simple what came from Sinai or from an authorized institution and what did not, but this is a discussion that must be held on each matter on its merits.
Indeed, there is no authority for what was created by virtue of the tradition of generations. Absolutely not. It has some weight, and there are customary laws. That is all. Only God Almighty or an authorized institution has authority. By the way, this is not my innovation. This is the rule agreed upon by most poskim. Except that from time to time they tend to ignore it.

You and K’ (and the rabbi he quotes) simply do not understand my argument. My argument is that conceptually there is no authority on factual matters. Regarding facts, and it doesn't matter if they are scientific or not (the coming of the Messiah or private providence is also a fact), what is possible is to convince me that this is the truth and not to claim proven authority against me. For if I am not convinced, what is the use of them telling me that such a position is heresy?! That's all. Very simple and clear, and anyone who disagrees with that is simply confused.

It seems to me that I understood this, and that is why I asked
I will explain in more detail, how is it that you have even one piece of information that you accept as correct? For example, the order of prayer
Aren't you relying on those who have no authority?

I was talking about facts. This is a dialogue between the deaf.

When you say facts, do you mean testimonies?
That is, you accept what is given as evidence, but do not accept what is given as “personal opinion” ?
That is how I understood it anyway

And here I am confused

All sermons of the sages from the verses are not evidence but “personal opinion” , supposedly

And if it is said that the sages are an authority, is this from Lenn, is this not the personal opinion of the moralists of the Torah from then to the present day?

I suggest we end here. You are making things difficult when you don't know what it is at all.
If there is something specific that I wrote that you don't understand, please write it out in detail (including a source) and we can discuss. I ask without general statements about my method that clearly show that you are not familiar with it.