What "side" are you on?

[Age]

K: be grateful that AGE is ignoring you...

BUT I NEVER 'ignored' "promethean75".

Some people just EXPECT to be LISTENED TO, and ACKNOWLEDGED, here 'right away', WITHOUT EVER ONCE considering that the "other" MIGHT JUST BE DOING SOME 'thing' ELSE.

he/she/it is a blithering idiot...

Okay. What 'we' have here is ANOTHER one who HAS 'me' AS A "BLITHERING IDIOT".

throwing magnetic words on a refrigerator would create more
intelligent answers... monkeys throwing shit at a wall would create
something more intelligent than anything AGE has written..

Kropotkin

'This' IS HOW some people SAW 'things' BACK THEN.

JUST LIKE HOW some people SAW 'the one' who was JUST SAYING that ACTUALLY it is the earth that revolves around the sun as being A "BLITHERING IDIOT", AS WELL.

K: I love it when someone proves my point..

Kropotkin

Did 'you' have a 'point' here "peter kropotkin"?

If yes, then what was 'it', EXACTLY?

And, did ANY one prove 'that point's here?

If yes, the who, EXACTLY?

Or, were 'you' just expressing a love that 'you' have here?

[Iwannaplato]

Have 'you' STILL NOT YET UNDERSTOOD FULLY what I HAVE SAID and WRITTEN here?

If 'we' USE and/or ACCEPT A 'definition', 'this' does NOT mean that 'we' ARE AGREEING WITH 'it', right?

For SURELY I could ACCEPT 'your definition', and/or even USE 'it', but IN NO WAY being AGREEING WITH 'it', correct?

'you' are now saying that 'you' ACCEPT 'my definition' of the 'mind' word, and have ASKED me;
'Could you then, working from the above definition, prove that
there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,'.

AND, I STILL SAY, Yes. I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds". ('This', by the way, may be the third time I have SAID and WRITTEN 'this').

And, ONCE AGAIN, if 'you' EXPLAINED HOW and/or WHY 'you' ARE MISSING 'parts' here, THEN 'this' COULD and WOULD HELP, TREMENDOUSLY, here.

Or, MAYBE 'you' ARE BELIEVING that it is 'you' who is NOT MISSING ANY 'thing' here, right?

SEE, ONLY through and by AGREEMENT, and ACCEPTANCE, are 'things' THEN UNDERSTOOD and/or KNOWN. 'This' applies 'individually' AND 'collectively'.

OK. I understand. I think I can understand without, yet, agreeing. I think I can disagree with positions, and to disagree, I need to understand, otherwise, how would I know if I agree. It seems like you disagree with some things and I assume you think you understand them. You disagree with some people's sense of what you are doing or what you are like. You don't agree with their assessments, but you understand what they mean, otherwise how could you disagree.

But, fine. You require me to say I agree, because without my doing this you think I cannot understand and/or know. You have made this clear.

And just to be clear, it wasn't that I disagreed either. I think it could have been fruitful to proceed. You don't. That's all clear.

I won't bother you with the request again.

[Peter Kropotkin]

BUT I NEVER 'ignored' "promethean75".

Some people just EXPECT to be LISTENED TO, and ACKNOWLEDGED, here 'right away', WITHOUT EVER ONCE considering that the "other" MIGHT JUST BE DOING SOME 'thing' ELSE.



Okay. What 'we' have here is ANOTHER one who HAS 'me' AS A "BLITHERING IDIOT".


'This' IS HOW some people SAW 'things' BACK THEN.

JUST LIKE HOW some people SAW 'the one' who was JUST SAYING that ACTUALLY it is the earth that revolves around the sun as being A "BLITHERING IDIOT", AS WELL.

K: I love it when someone proves my point..

Kropotkin

Did 'you' have a 'point' here "peter kropotkin"?

If yes, then what was 'it', EXACTLY?

And, did ANY one prove 'that point's here?

If yes, the who, EXACTLY?

Or, were 'you' just expressing a love that 'you' have here?

K: either you get the point, or you don't...
clearly you don't.. can't help you there...

Kropotkin

[VVilliam]

I have ALREADY ALLUDED TO 'the way' TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things', which REMOVES ANY and ALL DISTORTIONS, or FUZZINESS, here.

How's that going? Is it helping?

There is no alluding that is real.

[Age]

Have 'you' STILL NOT YET UNDERSTOOD FULLY what I HAVE SAID and WRITTEN here?

If 'we' USE and/or ACCEPT A 'definition', 'this' does NOT mean that 'we' ARE AGREEING WITH 'it', right?

For SURELY I could ACCEPT 'your definition', and/or even USE 'it', but IN NO WAY being AGREEING WITH 'it', correct?

'you' are now saying that 'you' ACCEPT 'my definition' of the 'mind' word, and have ASKED me;
'Could you then, working from the above definition, prove that
there is ONLY One Mind, and NOT MANY minds,'.

AND, I STILL SAY, Yes. I could SHOW 'you', through AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition' of the 'mind' word that there is ONLY One Mind, which would THEN MEAN, and thus [be] KNOWN, that there are NO "other minds". ('This', by the way, may be the third time I have SAID and WRITTEN 'this').

And, ONCE AGAIN, if 'you' EXPLAINED HOW and/or WHY 'you' ARE MISSING 'parts' here, THEN 'this' COULD and WOULD HELP, TREMENDOUSLY, here.

Or, MAYBE 'you' ARE BELIEVING that it is 'you' who is NOT MISSING ANY 'thing' here, right?

SEE, ONLY through and by AGREEMENT, and ACCEPTANCE, are 'things' THEN UNDERSTOOD and/or KNOWN. 'This' applies 'individually' AND 'collectively'.

OK. I understand. I think I can understand without, yet, agreeing.

'you' think you can understand 'what', exactly, without, yet, agreeing on 'what', exactly, "iwannaplato"?

I think I can disagree with positions, and to disagree, I need to understand, otherwise, how would I know if I agree.

Firstly, what 'you' 'think' could, obviously, be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, or partly false, wrong, and/or incorrect. So, what 'you' 'think' is of NO REAL importance. But what is Truly IMPORTANT IS what 'you', KNOW, FOR SURE.

Secondly, 'you' could only Accurately 'disagree' with 'positions' IF and WHEN 'you' KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY. And, to KNOW if 'positions' are ACTUALLY True, Right, or Correct or NOT 'you' would have to HAVE ALREADY AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions' for 'the words' involved.

Therefore, TO KNOW if 'you' 'agree' with a 'position' or not is to FIRST have an AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition/s' of 'the words' being USED, in 'the position'.

It seems like you disagree with some things and I assume you think you understand them.

'you' seem to be MISSING the POINT or just have A MISUNDERSTANDING here, still.

AGAIN, it is 'the words' and 'their DEFINITIONS', which HAVE TO BE AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, FIRST.

And NOT 'things'. It does NOT matter one iota on the agreeing or disagreeing with 'some things'. The ONLY 'thing', which REALLY MATTERS here, is the AGREEING UPON, and ACCEPTING, of 'the words' and 'the definitions' USED in 'the discussion' or 'the conversation'.

You disagree with some people's sense of what you are doing or what you are like.

BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What Truly MATTERS IS what 'it' IS that EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS.

You don't agree with their assessments, but you understand what they mean, otherwise how could you disagree.

What 'i' agree with or do NOT agree with does NOT matter.

Does ANY one REALLY CARE if I disagree or do NOT agree with some 'thing' someone "else's" 'assessment?

'you', people, do NOT CARE if I do NOT agree with 'you'. 'you', people, CARE ABOUT getting 'your' OWN views, positions, perspectives, and/or assessments ACROSS, right?

Also, HOW I could and do 'disagree' is BECAUSE I have a 'set of definitions', which WHEN LOOKED AT, from 'my perspective' SO FAR FIT PERFECTLY, TOGETHER.

Which IS NOT to say that 'that perspective' is True NOR Right, AT ALL. FINDING OUT if 'it' is True AND Right can ONLY OCCUR WITH and FROM the AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE OF ALL, and EVERY 'one', AS One.

But, fine. You require me to say I agree, because without my doing this you think I cannot understand and/or know. You have made this clear.

Okay, great.

And just to be clear, it wasn't that I disagreed either.

Okay.

I think it could have been fruitful to proceed. You don't. That's all clear.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WOW This was a QUICK JUMP, and A DECEPTIVE ATTEMPT, to BLAME 'me' for NOT PROCEEDING here, now.

LOL WHATEVER GAVE 'you' the IDEA here that I do NOT want TO PROCEED?

Especially considering the Fact that it HAS BEEN 'me' all along here DESCRIBING and EXPLAINING HOW TO PROCEED.

I won't bother you with the request again.

And 'this' IS EXACTLY WHY it TOOK SO LONG FOR 'these people', BACK THEN, to MOVE and PROCEED, FORWARD.

[Age]

K: I love it when someone proves my point..

Kropotkin

Did 'you' have a 'point' here "peter kropotkin"?

If yes, then what was 'it', EXACTLY?

And, did ANY one prove 'that point's here?

If yes, the who, EXACTLY?

Or, were 'you' just expressing a love that 'you' have here?

K: either you get the point, or you don't...

OBVIOUSLY.

AND, just AS OBVIOUS IS, EITHER, 'you' WILL CLARIFY, or 'you' WILL NOT.

But maybe 'you' CAN NOT, which is WHY 'you' WILL NOT, right?

clearly you don't.. can't help you there...

Kropotkin

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, it is, SUPPOSEDLY, CLEAR, to 'you', that I do NOT 'get' 'your POINT' here, BUT even WHEN I ASK 'you', NICELY, to CLARIFY what 'your POINT' IS, EXACTLY, 'you' STILL WILL NOT DO 'this'.

Which would NOW make some readers PONDER and QUESTION, WHY NOT "peter kropotkin"?

And the FUNNIEST PART OF ALL of 'this' is 'you' have, SOMEHOW, CONCLUDED that 'you' CAN NOT HELP 'me' here GET or UNDERSTAND 'your POINT'.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE and UNDERSTAND the ABSOLUTE ABSURDITY here "peter kropotkin"?

If no, I WILL see IF I CAN HELP 'you' here, now.

'you' SAY that it is CLEAR to 'you' that I do NOT 'get' some 'point', which 'you' SUPPOSEDLY have MADE here.

I ASK 'you', CLEARLY, the CLARIFYING QUESTION that IF 'you' HAD A 'point' here "peter kropotkin", then 'What is 'that point', EXACTLY?'

BUT THEN 'you' go on to CLAIM that 'you' can NOT HELP 'me' there, with 'that CLARIFYING QUESTION'.

I now need to say, NO MORE.

[Age]

I have ALREADY ALLUDED TO 'the way' TO LOOK AT and SEE 'things', which REMOVES ANY and ALL DISTORTIONS, or FUZZINESS, here.

How's that going?

''This' IS going PERFECTLY.

Is it helping?

Yes, 'it' IS helping TREMENDOUSLY.

SEE, I have A VERY SPECIFIC REASON FOR ONLY 'ALLUDING' to some 'things' here.

And, the REASON FOR 'this' COMES-TO-LIGHT, SOON ENOUGH. Well FOR 'those' WITH ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE ANYWAY, that IS.

There is no alluding that is real.

Okay, if 'you' SAY, and BELIEVE, so.

[Iwannaplato]

'you' think you can understand 'what', exactly, without, yet, agreeing on 'what', exactly, "iwannaplato"?

Both your definition of mind and you showing how there is one mind not many individual minds.

Firstly, what 'you' 'think' could, obviously, be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, or partly false, wrong, and/or incorrect. So, what 'you' 'think' is of NO REAL importance. But what is Truly IMPORTANT IS what 'you', KNOW, FOR SURE.

Oh, well, I know I can understand things I disagree with and/or are used as parts of showing things.

Secondly, 'you' could only Accurately 'disagree' with 'positions' IF and WHEN 'you' KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY. And, to KNOW if 'positions' are ACTUALLY True, Right, or Correct or NOT 'you' would have to HAVE ALREADY AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions' for 'the words' involved.

Sure.

Therefore, TO KNOW if 'you' 'agree' with a 'position' or not is to FIRST have an AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition/s' of 'the words' being USED, in 'the position'.

Yup and I certainly agreed that from that point on in the discussion Mind would be defined the way you did and accepted that that would be the meaning.

'you' seem to be MISSING the POINT or just have A MISUNDERSTANDING here, still.

I doubt it.

AGAIN, it is 'the words' and 'their DEFINITIONS', which HAVE TO BE AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, FIRST.

Yes. I agreed that your definition would be the definition and accepted that we would use in in the coming communication.

You disagree with some people's sense of what you are doing or what you are like.

BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What Truly MATTERS IS what 'it' IS that EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS.

I think of those as transitive verbs. But I think I know what you mean.

You don't agree with their assessments, but you understand what they mean, otherwise how could you disagree.

What 'i' agree with or do NOT agree with does NOT matter.

OK.

Does ANY one REALLY CARE if I disagree or do NOT agree with some 'thing' someone "else's" 'assessment?

That wasn't really the point.

'you', people,

I'd prefer not to be addressed this way. I'd prefer not to be lumped.

do NOT CARE if I do NOT agree with 'you'. 'you', people, CARE ABOUT getting 'your' OWN views, positions, perspectives, and/or assessments ACROSS, right?

I care about a number of things in these discussion. That's a poor assessment of me. I certainly was trying to find out something from you about your views.

Also, HOW I could and do 'disagree' is BECAUSE I have a 'set of definitions', which WHEN LOOKED AT, from 'my perspective' SO FAR FIT PERFECTLY, TOGETHER.

Great.

Which IS NOT to say that 'that perspective' is True NOR Right, AT ALL. FINDING OUT if 'it' is True AND Right can ONLY OCCUR WITH and FROM the AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE OF ALL, and EVERY 'one', AS One.

OK.

But, fine. You require me to say I agree, because without my doing this you think I cannot understand and/or know. You have made this clear.

Okay, great.

And just to be clear, it wasn't that I disagreed either.

Okay.

I think it could have been fruitful to proceed. You don't. That's all clear.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WOW This was a QUICK JUMP, and A DECEPTIVE ATTEMPT, to BLAME 'me' for NOT PROCEEDING here, now.

No, that is an unfair assessment. I had the option of asking clarifying questions about your definition of mind. I could have spent time trying to be clear if I agreed or I didn't. I chose not to do that. I meant to proceed without my being sure I agreed with your defnition of mind. I agreed to accept that definition for the purposes of our discussion. I was not clear that I agreed that it was the case. I felt we could proceed without my agreement that that was what minds are or the one mind is. It seemed you felt it was not a good idea without that.

Your interpretation of my intentions seems to be a negative one.

LOL WHATEVER GAVE 'you' the IDEA here that I do NOT want TO PROCEED?

Didn't want to proceed with showing me what you said you could show me.

Especially considering the Fact that it HAS BEEN 'me' all along here DESCRIBING and EXPLAINING HOW TO PROCEED.

Proceed if certain conditions were met.

I won't bother you with the request again.

And 'this' IS EXACTLY WHY it TOOK SO LONG FOR 'these people', BACK THEN, to MOVE and PROCEED, FORWARD.

I'd prefer not to be lumped like this with other people. Many people BACK THEN do this and I think it contribues to problems. It also positions the voice I am interacting with as above or better than me and the people I am lumped with. I think this also causes problems. I also think the LOL-ing causes problems and 'expressions' of emotions in this was also seem in online conversations like a positioning oneself as superior. This might be useful to know if you want to communicate clearly with people back then.

I don't know what your intentions or attitudes actually are - about yourself or the people you lump together. But your communication continues to come across in this condescending, lumping together way. This has been pointed out before to you and for whatever reasons you continue to communicate in this fashion.

I haven't seen enough value in what little you reveal about what you think to make experiencing this kind of communication worth experiencing. IOW I haven't seen at any time insights, either in communication with me or others, that seem particularly new, original or useful. And this includes me reading exchanged with people who put in long efforts to bridge via posting with you.

So, for me it is not worth wading through the long process you prefer.

So, to be clear. It is I who am deciding not to proceed. I am not entirely convinced you actually want to present your positions or are willing to communicate. I get the sense from our interactions and from watching those much more patient than me, that you may never reveal very much at all, because there will always be more criteria and hoops to jump through. And, yes, of course this could be incorrect.

But then any choice to continue to interact with you is a choice not to do something else. Hence, not finding much of value...yes, I choose not to proceed.

Best of luck with your project.

As an aside. LOL means laughs/laughing out loud. I don't believe you are laughing. I think it is a verbal dominance move.

[VVilliam]

There is no alluding that is real.

Okay, if 'you' SAY, and BELIEVE, so.

Do you BELIEVE your "Okay"?

Or were you just SAYING that.



I am reminded of an orchestra tuning their instruments while the house if filling with folk anticipating to hear fine music.
The tuning sounds themselves are alluring - promising the fine music the folk have come to hear.
Imagine the disappointment for the folk, if the orchestra continued tuning their instruments and never got around to actually playing the fine music promised.

[Age]

'you' think you can understand 'what', exactly, without, yet, agreeing on 'what', exactly, "iwannaplato"?

Both your definition of mind and you showing how there is one mind not many individual minds.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Firstly, what 'you' 'think' could, obviously, be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, or partly false, wrong, and/or incorrect. So, what 'you' 'think' is of NO REAL importance. But what is Truly IMPORTANT IS what 'you', KNOW, FOR SURE.

Oh, well, I know I can understand things I disagree with and/or are used as parts of showing things.

Okay, would you like to provide some example for us to look at here?

Secondly, 'you' could only Accurately 'disagree' with 'positions' IF and WHEN 'you' KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY. And, to KNOW if 'positions' are ACTUALLY True, Right, or Correct or NOT 'you' would have to HAVE ALREADY AN AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definitions' for 'the words' involved.

Sure.

Therefore, TO KNOW if 'you' 'agree' with a 'position' or not is to FIRST have an AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'definition/s' of 'the words' being USED, in 'the position'.

Yup and I certainly agreed that from that point on in the discussion Mind would be defined the way you did and accepted that that would be the meaning.

'you' seem to be MISSING the POINT or just have A MISUNDERSTANDING here, still.

I doubt it.

AGAIN, it is 'the words' and 'their DEFINITIONS', which HAVE TO BE AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, FIRST.

Yes. I agreed that your definition would be the definition and accepted that we would use in in the coming communication.

Yes, ONLY AFTER what could be called or referred to as the 'third time' in this discussion. But THEN you made the CLAIM that I do NOT want to PROCEED.

You disagree with some people's sense of what you are doing or what you are like.

BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER.

What Truly MATTERS IS what 'it' IS that EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS.

I think of those as transitive verbs. [/quote]

Okay, but I have absolutely NO IDEA NOR CLUE what you are meaning NOR referring to here.

But I think I know what you mean.

Okay.

You don't agree with their assessments, but you understand what they mean, otherwise how could you disagree.

What 'i' agree with or do NOT agree with does NOT matter.

OK.

Does ANY one REALLY CARE if I disagree or do NOT agree with some 'thing' someone "else's" 'assessment?

That wasn't really the point.

Okay. What WAS 'the point', EXACTLY?

'you', people,

I'd prefer not to be addressed this way. I'd prefer not to be lumped.

Okay, FAIR ENOUGH, and it is GREAT to SEE 'you' provide CLARITY on 'your' OWN 'position'.

Also, what about WHEN 'you' are being 'lumped' INTO 'a group', in which ALL OF 'you' are DOING the EXACT SAME 'thing' or HAVE the EXACT SAME 'thing'?

do NOT CARE if I do NOT agree with 'you'. 'you', people, CARE ABOUT getting 'your' OWN views, positions, perspectives, and/or assessments ACROSS, right?

I care about a number of things in these discussion. That's a poor assessment of me. I certainly was trying to find out something from you about your views.

So, do 'you', "iwannaplato", CARE if I do NOT agree WITH 'your views'?

Also, HOW I could and do 'disagree' is BECAUSE I have a 'set of definitions', which WHEN LOOKED AT, from 'my perspective' SO FAR FIT PERFECTLY, TOGETHER.

Great.

Which IS NOT to say that 'that perspective' is True NOR Right, AT ALL. FINDING OUT if 'it' is True AND Right can ONLY OCCUR WITH and FROM the AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE OF ALL, and EVERY 'one', AS One.

OK.

But, fine. You require me to say I agree, because without my doing this you think I cannot understand and/or know. You have made this clear.

Okay, great.

And just to be clear, it wasn't that I disagreed either.

Okay.

I think it could have been fruitful to proceed. You don't. That's all clear.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WOW This was a QUICK JUMP, and A DECEPTIVE ATTEMPT, to BLAME 'me' for NOT PROCEEDING here, now.

No, that is an unfair assessment. I had the option of asking clarifying questions about your definition of mind. I could have spent time trying to be clear if I agreed or I didn't. I chose not to do that. I meant to proceed without my being sure I agreed with your defnition of mind.

Okay. Now that what you ACTUAL MEANT, has been WRITTEN and EXPRESSED here, now, then 'this' CHANGED the WHOLE 'view' and/or 'perspective' I was 'getting' and 'seeing' here.

Which PROVIDES a GREAT EXAMPLE of just QUICKLY, EASILY, and SIMPLY MISCOMMUNICATION CAN HAPPEN and DOES OCCUR.

I agreed to accept that definition for the purposes of our discussion.

Yes, you did in your last reply.

I was not clear that I agreed that it was the case. I felt we could proceed without my agreement that that was what minds are or the one mind is. It seemed you felt it was not a good idea without that.

I can NOT, for example, EXPLAIN to ANY one that there are 'unicorns' living somewhere, if the part of the 'definition' of 'unicorn' IS 'a living animal'
is NOT AGREED UPON. And this IS WHY I think it is NOT a so-called 'good idea' to proceed WITHOUT AGREEMENT of 'definitions'.

Your interpretation of my intentions seems to be a negative one.

I do NOT LOOK FOR 'negative' NOR 'positive' in or of 'things', but 'you' are absolutely FREE TO DO SO.

My 'interpretation' of what you were MEANING here was OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect here. BUT, this WAS VERY QUICKLY RECTIFIED when 'you' EXPLAINED what 'you' ACTUALLY MEANT.

LOL WHATEVER GAVE 'you' the IDEA here that I do NOT want TO PROCEED?

Didn't want to proceed with showing me what you said you could show me.

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVEN STOPPED WANTING TO PROCEED WITH SHOWING 'you' what 'I' SAID 'I' could SHOW 'you'.

I KNOW I CAN DO 'it', and would STILL LOVE TO DO 'it', FOR 'you'.

Especially considering the Fact that it HAS BEEN 'me' all along here DESCRIBING and EXPLAINING HOW TO PROCEED.

Proceed if certain conditions were met.

OF COURSE, I CAN NOT, for example, PROCEED, successfully, in the CREATION of A building IF the 'certain conditions' NEEDED IN the CONSTRUCTION of THAT building are NOT being 'met'. JUST LIKE I can NOT PROCEED, successfully, for example, of EXPLAINING how God does, or does not, exist, if the 'definition' of the 'God' word is NOT in AGREEMENT, and in ACCEPTANCE, from the outset.

I won't bother you with the request again.

And 'this' IS EXACTLY WHY it TOOK SO LONG FOR 'these people', BACK THEN, to MOVE and PROCEED, FORWARD.

I'd prefer not to be lumped like this with other people.

Okay. BUT I can USE 'your words' TO SHOW and PROVE WHY a particular 'group of people' could, or could not, do some 'thing'.

Many people BACK THEN do this and I think it contribues to problems.

And what 'problems' did doing 'this' contribute to, for example?

It also positions the voice I am interacting with as above or better than me and the people I am lumped with.

Now 'this' is what 'you' are INFERRING, but NOT what 'I' am MEANING, NOR even IMPLYING.

Also, IF, and WHEN, 'you' FULLY UNDERSTAND WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, compared with who and what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, 'the above' MAKES FAR MORE SENSE, and the 'lumping together' is Truly UNDERSTOOD, and thus ALSO NEVER gets JUDGED UPON.

I think this also causes problems.

Again, what 'you' 'think' or 'assume' is NOT necessarily True, Right, NOR Correct, correct?

If yes, then there IS REALLY NOTHING AT ALL TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, NOR FEARED here.

And, ONCE AGAIN, 'this' ALL COMES TOGETHER and MAKES PERFECT SENSE, anyway.

I also think the LOL-ing causes problems and 'expressions' of emotions in this was also seem in online conversations like a positioning oneself as superior.

BUT I ONLY SAY and WRITE 'LOL' to SHOW and PROVE that I could do 'this' for 'ages', and even 'years', and 'you', posters, back when this was being written WOULD ASSUME 'you' KNEW what I was SAYING, and MEANING, BUT REALLY 'you' had NO ABSOLUTE CLUE NOR IDEA.

A LOT of THE WAY I WRITE is TO SHOW, PROVE, and REVEAL just HOW MUCH MISCOMMUNICATION, MISCONSTRUING, MISINTERPRETATION, and/or MISUNDERSTANDING ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE WHILE ASSUMING and BELIEVING CONTINUES.

'you' are thinking of BELIEVING that 'LOL' MEANS SOME 'thing', which THEN LEADS TO ASSUMING SOME 'thing', which 'it' MAY WELL NOT AT ALL.

ONLY THROUGH and BY SEEKING OUT and GAINING and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, FIRST, CAN THEN ACTUAL 'CLARITY' be REACHED, and ACHIEVED.

AND, WITH CLARITY A FAR CLEARER PERSPECTIVE, or Picture, CAN BE and IS OBTAINED. And, WITH MORE CLARITY the CRYSTAL CLEARER the Picture BECOMES.

This might be useful to know if you want to communicate clearly with people back then.

ONCE AGAIN, I am WRITING FOR MY TARGETED AUDIENCE, which may well be NOT necessarily 'you', posters, here, when this is being written.

ALSO, and by the way, CONSIDERING the IRREFUTABLE Fact that there IS ABSOLUTELY NO one who is 'better' NOR 'superior' than "ANOTHER" one IS, so even just THINKING that one COULD 'position' "them" 'self' as being above or superior than "another" IS A COMPLETELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect VIEW or POSITION to HAVE or HOLD, anyway.

I don't know what your intentions or attitudes actually are - about yourself or the people you lump together. But your communication continues to come across in this condescending, lumping together way.

Could 'you' BE making a Wrong ASSUMPTION here?

BUT I TOTALLY ACCEPT THAT 'that' IS HOW the way I AM 'communicating', OR 'NOT communicating properly/effectively' IS 'coming across' to 'you' here, "iwannaplato".

And, BECAUSE I have, hopefully CLEARLY, EXPLAINED the ACTUAL REASON WHY I have been USING the three letters of 'l', 'o', and 'l', I may now CEASE to USE 'them'. But, do please forgive me if I do USE 'them' UNINTENTIONALLY, as some 'things' do become 'habitual', and, do get done WITHOUT CONSCIOUS NOTICING some times.

This has been pointed out before to you and for whatever reasons you continue to communicate in this fashion.

HOPEFULLY 'you' UNDERSTAND the REASON, now.

I haven't seen enough value in what little you reveal about what you think to make experiencing this kind of communication worth experiencing.

Okay. But we NEVER REALLY even GOT STARTED, as it took SO LONG, well to me anyway, to even just get UNDERSTOOD the NECESSITY of just the 'one word' AGREEMENT, here.

IOW I haven't seen at any time insights, either in communication with me or others, that seem particularly new, original or useful.

Okay. BUT, REMEMBER, there was NO REAL INTENTION to BRING-TO-LIGHT ANY 'new' REVELATION here, in this forum, at 'this time' when this is being written.

And this includes me reading exchanged with people who put in long efforts to bridge via posting with you.

Okay. BUT there MAY JUST HAVE BEEN A "one-sided" PERSPECTIVE, which had SNEAKED 'its' WAY, 'in there', WITHOUT BEING CONSCIOUSLY NOTICED, OR, MAYBE NOT?

We will just have TO WAIT, TO SEE.

So, for me it is not worth wading through the long process you prefer.

Okay, BUT, JUST SOMETIMES the GOOD 'things' do NOT APPEAR INSTANTANEOUSLY.

So, to be clear. It is I who am deciding not to proceed.

Okay, FAIR ENOUGH, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' OF YOUR CHOOSING.

I am not entirely convinced you actually want to present your positions or are willing to communicate.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, IF 'you' NEVER PROCEED, then 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW.

Unless, OF COURSE, some one "else" would LIKE TO PROCEED, and 'you' ARE STILL READING, then 'you' MIGHT FIND OUT, 'that way'.

AGAIN, we WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

I get the sense from our interactions and from watching those much more patient than me, that you may never reveal very much at all, because there will always be more criteria and hoops to jump through.

BUT, ALL I REALLY SAID was:

And, yes, of course this could be incorrect.

But then any choice to continue to interact with you is a choice not to do something else. Hence, not finding much of value...yes, I choose not to proceed.

Okay. BUT SOME might find it somewhat STRANGE that 'you' GAVE UP at, roughly about, the EXACT SAME time 'you' DECIDED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AGREEMENT WITH the 'definition' I PROVIDED, (when 'it' was ASKED FOR), and WHEN it became KNOWN that it was NOT 'me' who was GIVING UP, AT ALL.

Best of luck with your project.

Okay. Thank you.

As an aside. LOL means laughs/laughing out loud.

Does 'LOL' here MEAN 'laughs/laughing out loud' FOR EVERY one, OR, FOR 'you' here, "iwannaplato"?

I don't believe you are laughing. I think it is a verbal dominance move.

It could well be a so-called 'verbal dominance move'. BUT, NOT necessarily 'dominance' in the sense OVER someone, but in the sense of SHOWING or REVEALING some 'thing', which, by the way, was NEVER a 'put down' of ANY one NOR ANY group, but was A REVELATION of what 'people' DID, BACK in a 'previous time'.

Just IMAGINE if adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, HAD ACTUAL 'evidence', and ACTUAL PROOF, of what 'the people' ACTUALLY SAID and DID, BACK THEN, when just one was TRYING TO INFORM the "others" of what the ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, in regards to whether the sun revolved around the earth or whether the earth revolved around the sun, and when the "others" were NOT LISTENING.

Now, IF there were ACTUAL RECORDED video and/or writings of what was ACTUALLY SAID, and DID, then 'you', adult human beings, 'now', when this is being written, WOULD HAVE ACTUAL PROOF OF what NOT TO DO, and/or what TO DO, that would make 'things' BETTER and/or BE MORE HELPFUL.

JUST MAYBE it is 'this type of verbal dominance move' I AM DOING, and PERFORMING, here, and NOT some IMAGINED 'condescension' OF absolutely ANY one.

I, for one, CERTAINLY DO NOT RIDICULE, NOR JUDGE, 'the people' who were NOT LISTENING, 'back in the day', to 'the one' who was just SAYING and EXPRESSING what 'it' FOUND OUT to be the ACTUAL Truth of 'things', in regards to the sun and the earth, JUST LIKE I WOULD NEVER JUDGE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'person' here, 'back in the days', when this is being written.

I AM JUST DOING what I KNOW WILL, and DOES, HELP IN CREATING A MUCH BETTER 'world' FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERY one.

[Age]

There is no alluding that is real.

Okay, if 'you' SAY, and BELIEVE, so.

Do you BELIEVE your "Okay"?

NO.

Or were you just SAYING that.

Or was I just SAYING 'what', EXACTLY?

I am reminded of an orchestra tuning their instruments while the house if filling with folk anticipating to hear fine music.
The tuning sounds themselves are alluring - promising the fine music the folk have come to hear.
Imagine the disappointment for the folk, if the orchestra continued tuning their instruments and never got around to actually playing the fine music promised.

AND, what was being 'reminded' of 'this' in relation TO, EXACTLY?

[VVilliam]

I am reminded of an orchestra tuning their instruments while the house is filling with folk anticipating to hear fine music.
The tuning sounds themselves are alluring - promising the fine music the folk have come to hear.
Imagine the disappointment for the folk, if the orchestra continued tuning their instruments and never got around to actually playing the fine music promised.

AND, what was being 'reminded' of 'this' in relation TO, EXACTLY?

The exactness you seek with your question is only apparent to those who have the eyes to see.
Those who do not, cannot, and thus any answers to such who question, will not be understood for they do not having the ears to hear, the eyes to see, or the minds comprehend.

[Gary Childress]

Would you like to SHARE with 'me' what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I'm talking about the end of life as we know it on Earth.

Which WOULD BE THE GREATEST 'thing' that EVER HAPPENED TO 'you', human beings, AND THE REST OF planet earth and EVERY 'thing' ELSE on earth.

BECAUSE 'the life' I KNOW OF, on earth, in the days when this was being written WAS a FAR MORE 'war-torn, pollution-riddled, and stressful life' than 'it' was NOT. So, with 'that life' ENDING and 'the Truly Peaceful, stress less, pollution-free, loving and harmonious life' beginning AFTER 'the DEATH' of 'that OLD life' would be GREAT TO SEE, and LIVE through.

I'm talking about escalating war between humans, and global environmental catastrophe.

'you' SPEAK, WRITE, and talk ABOUT 'these things' here as though it is NOT 'you', adult human beings, who are the ONES who ARE CAUSING and CREATING 'them'.

Are 'you' STILL NOT YET AWARE "gary childress" that the ONLY ONES CAUSING and CREATING 'those things' ARE 'you', ADULT human beings, SOLELY?

Age's "final solution", extermination of humanity would be a blessing according to him. FUCKING ADOLF. GO ROT IN HELL. HYPOCRITE! YOU WANT HUMANS DEAD. DO YOU INCLUDE YOURSELF IN THAT, HYPOCRITE!

[Walker]

[Gary Childress]

It could well be a so-called 'verbal dominance move'. BUT, NOT necessarily 'dominance' in the sense OVER someone, but in the sense of SHOWING or REVEALING some 'thing', which, by the way, was NEVER a 'put down' of ANY one NOR ANY group, but was A REVELATION of what 'people' DID, BACK in a 'previous time'.

You mean people like yourself included, of course, right?