STD and how to Survive It

[Phil8659]

What 'damage'? You are the one rambling on incoherently about the bible and Plato. Are you schizophrenic by any chance? Are you aware that you are insane?

LMAO,
When I was young going to La. Tech, having won a couple of minor writing awards, my English teach wanted me to turn pro. My answer to her, so long ago,was that I would not have the ability to write anything worth while until in my late 50's or early 60's.
My work in Universal Language, proves me right, what is your standard of judgment?

Oh yes, I've seen you boasting about your 'brilliant writing skills' on other posts. The best writers are easily understood and know how to use language to get their point across as clearly as possible. As someone pointed out recently, the individual words you write might be English, but the way they are strung together is meaningless as a whole. Corporate language does the same thing, and so does so-called 'post-modern' gibberish.

Well then genius, tell me this, and you can prove it to yourself and anyone can prove it to themselves.
What is the foundation of everything, both intelligible and perceptible? it would be nice, if everyone held their peace until after the demonstration. I am sure the Lady will defend her honor, like any lady would.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

LMAO,
When I was young going to La. Tech, having won a couple of minor writing awards, my English teach wanted me to turn pro. My answer to her, so long ago,was that I would not have the ability to write anything worth while until in my late 50's or early 60's.
My work in Universal Language, proves me right, what is your standard of judgment?

Oh yes, I've seen you boasting about your 'brilliant writing skills' on other posts. The best writers are easily understood and know how to use language to get their point across as clearly as possible. As someone pointed out recently, the individual words you write might be English, but the way they are strung together is meaningless as a whole. Corporate language does the same thing, and so does so-called 'post-modern' gibberish.

What is the foundation of everything, both intelligible and perceptible?

What is that supposed to mean?

[Phil8659]

Oh yes, I've seen you boasting about your 'brilliant writing skills' on other posts. The best writers are easily understood and know how to use language to get their point across as clearly as possible. As someone pointed out recently, the individual words you write might be English, but the way they are strung together is meaningless as a whole. Corporate language does the same thing, and so does so-called 'post-modern' gibberish.

What is the foundation of everything, both intelligible and perceptible?

What is that supposed to mean?

Wow! that was a short demonstration. If you need a dictionary, there are plenty online. I'll wait.

[Phil8659]

Women love to make you wait. They like to show you whose boss.
There are times, you just cannot help but recall the song Slowpoke. Cute but true.

There are times, you wish you had a secretary to do all the waiting for you, but not many could afford one.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What is the foundation of everything, both intelligible and perceptible?

What is that supposed to mean?

Wow! that was a short demonstration. If you need a dictionary, there are plenty online. I'll wait.

Are you talking physics? How are you defining 'everything'? Are you talking about the 'theory of everything'? Or are you just bible-bashing again?
If I don't know what you are asking then how can I 'answer' it (although it was clearly a rhetorical question, since you obviously have the 'answer to everything'). Otherwise, go ask a theoretical physicist.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Women love to make you wait. They like to show you whose boss.
There are times, you just cannot help but recall the song Slowpoke. Cute but true.

'whose' boss And this from the 'award winning writer' and pet pupil of 'Mrs. Mitchell'

[Phil8659]

What is that supposed to mean?

Wow! that was a short demonstration. If you need a dictionary, there are plenty online. I'll wait.

Are you talking physics? How are you defining 'everything'? Are you talking about the 'theory of everything'? Or are you just bible-bashing again?
If I don't know what you are asking then how can I 'answer' it (although it was clearly a rhetorical question, since you obviously have the 'answer to everything'). Otherwise, go ask a theoretical physicist.

Nope. You have an example of it right at your finger tips, you see it, experience, everywhere, all the time. What is it?

See how quickly you go off topic and start babbling. You are definitely not even worth talking with.

[Phil8659]

was your bull shit a surrender? as you have time to play, you must have had time to answer the question.
So, tell me boss lady, how can you imagine that you know anything, when you do not even know the definition of a thing?

A relative and a correlative, noun and verb? If you are too illiterate to even know what a thing is, how do you imagine, unless you are delusional, that you know anything at all?

Plato was the founder of formal grammar, Aristotle was the first who tried to systematize it.

Your computer examples it, and there has been no correct grammar book since Plato. Yet you imagine, you can glue words together and it not be gibberish. Every bit of it by the recursion of the meaning of a thing, which you don't know when every thing in your life examples it. So how is it that lacking any standard upon which to use words, you actually believe that you know something, which you prove you don't?????

Do you really believe in Harry Potter? Well Expect some Petroleum Jelly because the only person you are screwing is yourself. Not me, I don't give a damn if you care or do not.

[Phil8659]

Women love to make you wait. They like to show you whose boss.
There are times, you just cannot help but recall the song Slowpoke. Cute but true.

'whose' boss And this from the 'award winning writer' and pet pupil of 'Mrs. Mitchell'

I like that part, I really do.
But, is there actually a real difference, between who is boss, and whose boss, that maybe more than a simple typo, now I grant you the typical construction is considered politically correct, but the other is actually off color, if you know what that means.

Now I was fair, I gave you time to think about it.
But let us say you simply did not get it. You did show, you jumped to the simple perceptible, and completely were baffled by the intelligible, do you think a good grammar teacher is that simple minded?
Or do you not believe Confucius when he said, A superior man shows a cautious reserve in that which he does not know?

[Phil8659]

So, both the JCS and Plato, use a very simple writer's technique as a basic psychology test, basic I.Q. test you might say, by how information is presented, a reader reveals themselves by which they follow, the perceptible or the intelligible. Now, is it 100 percent accurate?
Well, it is a fact of grammar, if a thing is perceptible it can not possibly be intelligible, and if it is intelligible, it cannot possibly be perceptible. So yes, it is 100% accurate. That is why it was used by these masters of literature, because they actually were literate.

So keep on pointing out typo's and spelling errors, but it only means that you cannot comprehend the written word. You cannot follow a simple idea. My grammar teacher was not the stupid type.

Have you ever read Mark Twain? or if you prefer Samuel Clemens? I am one of perhaps many who has posted his entire works online. So, there is no excuse not to study him.
He is very funny and very smart. And not shy about being off color.

[FlashDangerpants]

'whose' boss

Wow, he spent two hours obsessing over that and wrote 3 different responses.
Nice.

[Age]

I've genuinely never encountered anyone with such a pathological need to insert unimpressive boasts into all conversation.

Hi Flash, I suppose a lot of us carry scars from interacting socially. Sometimes it's through no fault of our own and sometimes it may be because of the way we choose to act toward or around others. While I don't think that most humans are "stupid" (as the OP seems to be suggesting) I can identify with the sentiment of discontentment toward others (now dealing with emotional trauma and social alienation at a young age). I have a hard time accepting my own role in it, however, I think peace comes when we make friends with the world around us. Animosity doesn't seem to solve a whole lot. As Henry astutely points out, honey is a much better offering than vinegar.

What are your thoughts on what I say above?

It's true we probably ought to pity Phil983475893745 for his condition, it is very bad and he is seriously fucked up. It's not something he chose, just an unfortunate alignment of bits, things, and stuff in his brain that he couldn't possibly control. However he is so extremly dislikeable that I cannot actually find any sympathy for him. It's like a Frankenstein monster with the brains of Nick_A, the social awareness of Age, both the pretension & the entitlement of Handjob7, all mixed up with the pleasant and easy going manners of Vegetariantaxidermy

So JUDGING "others", and speaking ABOUT 'them', is the correct way of behaving and being 'socially aware', right "flashdangerpants"?