I want to start a chat session for someone / anyone to explain how I managed to get four downvotes on this well researched and referenced answer.
Are people just expressing their ignorance on the topic, seriously I am highly confused :) !
I did not down-vote your answer, but here is a bit of criticism meant to be totally constructive:
Make your point quickly. You say "short answer: yes," but it's not clear what you are saying yes to: Yes that both Annica and Anatta violate? Yes that one particular one does? State your main point as a complete sentence pretty soon. You then begin discussing that is not clear how it relates to the answer.
Use words from the question in your answer. The words "Annica" and "Anatta" do not appear in your answer. I do not see the word "not-self" appear either. "Impermanent" and "permanent" each appear, but never in a prominent way that someone skimming your answer would be likely to see it, nor in a way that it is clear that your major point is about permanence/impermanence itself rather than some other thing.
Limit the content of your answer to things that address the question or support your answer. For example, you added at the end "Oh and the Buddhists have always argued explicitly against a creator God." Certainly a true statement, but what point are you trying to support in it? You open by mentioning "there are no 'schools' of Buddhism, just disagreements," but it's not clear how that relates to the question at hand.