After 6 years I still don't understand this

A limit exists doesn't mean a value at that point exists. I note that some of what is written here is true because x^x = 1 at x = 0, but that doesn't establish a proof that x^x = 0. The most accurate one to me is still the x^(2-2) proof, although strictly speaking cancelling variables isn't the most correct thing to do. A change of variables would stamp that.

Stop insulting each other - you all sound like little kids quarrelling. Can't we have a civilised argument?

Hadriel