your penalty box

[henry quirk]

If ANY one wants to put one or ALL on their for list, then please feel FREE to do so. But do NOT 'try to' DEFEND 'thyself' from NOT being able to FULLY UNDERSTAND the "other".

?

regret

As in: I regret takin' age out of the penalty box.

[Age]

?

regret

As in: I regret takin' age out of the penalty box.

So, INSTEAD of READING and REPLYING to what I SAY and WRiTE, WHY do you NOT just put me back in YOUR LIST of those, who are NOT WORTHY of being LISTENED TO, nor HEARD?

[henry quirk]

So, INSTEAD of READING and REPLYING to what I SAY and WRiTE, WHY do you NOT just put me back in YOUR LIST of those, who are NOT WORTHY of being LISTENED TO, nor HEARD?

Okay: back in it goes...

047D1F29-3BEB-47DA-94B4-DAECD4C9A3C6.png (43.83 KiB) Viewed 1362 times

[Age]

So, INSTEAD of READING and REPLYING to what I SAY and WRiTE, WHY do you NOT just put me back in YOUR LIST of those, who are NOT WORTHY of being LISTENED TO, nor HEARD?

Okay: back in it goes...047D1F29-3BEB-47DA-94B4-DAECD4C9A3C6.png

"henry quirk" writes this as though someone CARES.

NO one CARES, and IN Fact what "henry quirk" is doing here is only PROVIDING FURTHER PROOF for what I have to SAY and CLAIM about how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

[Iwannaplato]

But you will NEVER KNOW, FOR SURE.

Perhaps, however, choosing to spend X minutes with person X is time away from talking/reading person Y or meditating or....some other activity one has already found tends to be valuable. Any choice may be the wrong one, but if one has found, for example, that someone seem to be an idiot - sorry, I mean, doesn't want to focus on things you want to or in ways you find valuable - then to continue to choose having contact is to choose to not do something else.

OF COURSE.

Was there ANY reason or NEED to express what is OBVIOUSLY Truly OBVIOUS?

If yes, then PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I am very glad you agree with me, then. Earlier posts of yours, for example the one below, seemed to indicate you thought putting people on ignore was wrong, per se.

I do not put ANY one in the, so called, "penalty box". This is because EVERY one is worthy of being LISTENED TO and HEARD. But most in here will NEVER KNOW this.

You seemed to be assuming that if someone puts someone on ignore, that person is saying no one should listen to that person, when in fact it is simply, for me anyway, a way of making it easier to see what I am more likely to find interesting and not to see what I tend not to find interesting.

As I said earlier in the thread we all do this in a variety of ways....

You might miss something. But each time you read their posts, you could be reading someone else's post. So, you are missing that. If you spend 40 minutes here, you can choose to cut out some of the noise, make it easier to avoid certain posters, not catch a phrase and get drawn (by idiocy sometimes) and focus on other people's posts. Yes, we make choices and we might miss something. But keeping their posts visible and checking them out ENTAILS that you miss something else. And what you have done is eliminate something you think probably has less value for you.

If I read a novelist and it was crap, I'd be less likely to read their next novel. Yes, it might be a work of genius, but I will read something else. Perhaps I do read the next and it's crap. Now I decide not to try again (unless I get told by people I respect that finally this person can write) and I read something else. I don't miss that other novel.

Everybody selects, even the people who come and take some moral/intellectual high ground here in a thread like this: Oh, I would never remove a voice. Everyone's posts might have value. Or whatever their take on high ground. But the truth is they are, in their lives, always selecting, and giving preference to make this person a friend and not that one - so they have conversations with this person much more than others and will miss out on other conversations - this director's films and not that one's, these books and not those, this news source and not that one and so on and so on.

So, their moral/intellectual high ground is just bs. They do it, don't think of it in this context, and like standing over others.

We all select what we focus on. Yes, it is fallible. But we have to select, even if we never select, that's selecting and it means out limited time is spent without trying to find voices, writers, speakers who tend to give us what we value.

If one selects 'I'll take whatever comes' well, you sure are going to miss something.

Now, one does not have to use the foe function to avoid certain people here or elsewhere. But if it makes it easier, why not?

[Age]

Perhaps, however, choosing to spend X minutes with person X is time away from talking/reading person Y or meditating or....some other activity one has already found tends to be valuable. Any choice may be the wrong one, but if one has found, for example, that someone seem to be an idiot - sorry, I mean, doesn't want to focus on things you want to or in ways you find valuable - then to continue to choose having contact is to choose to not do something else.

OF COURSE.

Was there ANY reason or NEED to express what is OBVIOUSLY Truly OBVIOUS?

If yes, then PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I am very glad you agree with me, then. Earlier posts of yours, for example the one below, seemed to indicate you thought putting people on ignore was wrong, per se.

I do not put ANY one in the, so called, "penalty box". This is because EVERY one is worthy of being LISTENED TO and HEARD. But most in here will NEVER KNOW this.

You seemed to be assuming that if someone puts someone on ignore, that person is saying no one should listen to that person, when in fact it is simply, for me anyway, a way of making it easier to see what I am more likely to find interesting and not to see what I tend not to find interesting.

Just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I NEVER ASSUMED ANY such thing.

In fact, what I was ACTUALLY THINKING WAS; that if someone puts another on ignore, then that one is saying that they do not want to listen to what the other one is saying, no matter what they have to say, and that absolutely EVERY one is WORTHY of being LISTENED to AND HEARD. This is because ABSOLUTELY EVERY one is born ABSOLUTELY WORTHY and DESERVING OF being HEARD, and LISTENED TO.

As I said earlier in the thread we all do this in a variety of ways....

You might miss something. But each time you read their posts, you could be reading someone else's post. So, you are missing that. If you spend 40 minutes here, you can choose to cut out some of the noise, make it easier to avoid certain posters, not catch a phrase and get drawn (by idiocy sometimes) and focus on other people's posts. Yes, we make choices and we might miss something. But keeping their posts visible and checking them out ENTAILS that you miss something else. And what you have done is eliminate something you think probably has less value for you.

If I read a novelist and it was crap, I'd be less likely to read their next novel. Yes, it might be a work of genius, but I will read something else. Perhaps I do read the next and it's crap. Now I decide not to try again (unless I get told by people I respect that finally this person can write) and I read something else. I don't miss that other novel.

Everybody selects, even the people who come and take some moral/intellectual high ground here in a thread like this: Oh, I would never remove a voice. Everyone's posts might have value. Or whatever their take on high ground. But the truth is they are, in their lives, always selecting, and giving preference to make this person a friend and not that one - so they have conversations with this person much more than others and will miss out on other conversations - this director's films and not that one's, these books and not those, this news source and not that one and so on and so on.

So, their moral/intellectual high ground is just bs. They do it, don't think of it in this context, and like standing over others.

We all select what we focus on. Yes, it is fallible. But we have to select, even if we never select, that's selecting and it means out limited time is spent without trying to find voices, writers, speakers who tend to give us what we value.

If one selects 'I'll take whatever comes' well, you sure are going to miss something.

Now, one does not have to use the foe function to avoid certain people here or elsewhere. But if it makes it easier, why not?

Because the MOST UNEXPECTING one might be the one who ENDS UP PROVIDING the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATIONAL INFORMATION.

[Iwannaplato]

OF COURSE.

Was there ANY reason or NEED to express what is OBVIOUSLY Truly OBVIOUS?

If yes, then PLEASE EXPLAIN.

I am very glad you agree with me, then. Earlier posts of yours, for example the one below, seemed to indicate you thought putting people on ignore was wrong, per se.

I do not put ANY one in the, so called, "penalty box". This is because EVERY one is worthy of being LISTENED TO and HEARD. But most in here will NEVER KNOW this.

You seemed to be assuming that if someone puts someone on ignore, that person is saying no one should listen to that person, when in fact it is simply, for me anyway, a way of making it easier to see what I am more likely to find interesting and not to see what I tend not to find interesting.

Just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I NEVER ASSUMED ANY such thing.

In fact, what I was ACTUALLY THINKING WAS; that if someone puts another on ignore, then that one is saying that they do not want to listen to what the other one is saying, no matter what they have to say, and that absolutely EVERY one is WORTHY of being LISTENED to AND HEARD. This is because ABSOLUTELY EVERY one is born ABSOLUTELY WORTHY and DESERVING OF being HEARD, and LISTENED TO.

As I said earlier in the thread we all do this in a variety of ways....

You might miss something. But each time you read their posts, you could be reading someone else's post. So, you are missing that. If you spend 40 minutes here, you can choose to cut out some of the noise, make it easier to avoid certain posters, not catch a phrase and get drawn (by idiocy sometimes) and focus on other people's posts. Yes, we make choices and we might miss something. But keeping their posts visible and checking them out ENTAILS that you miss something else. And what you have done is eliminate something you think probably has less value for you.

If I read a novelist and it was crap, I'd be less likely to read their next novel. Yes, it might be a work of genius, but I will read something else. Perhaps I do read the next and it's crap. Now I decide not to try again (unless I get told by people I respect that finally this person can write) and I read something else. I don't miss that other novel.

Everybody selects, even the people who come and take some moral/intellectual high ground here in a thread like this: Oh, I would never remove a voice. Everyone's posts might have value. Or whatever their take on high ground. But the truth is they are, in their lives, always selecting, and giving preference to make this person a friend and not that one - so they have conversations with this person much more than others and will miss out on other conversations - this director's films and not that one's, these books and not those, this news source and not that one and so on and so on.

So, their moral/intellectual high ground is just bs. They do it, don't think of it in this context, and like standing over others.

We all select what we focus on. Yes, it is fallible. But we have to select, even if we never select, that's selecting and it means out limited time is spent without trying to find voices, writers, speakers who tend to give us what we value.

If one selects 'I'll take whatever comes' well, you sure are going to miss something.

Now, one does not have to use the foe function to avoid certain people here or elsewhere. But if it makes it easier, why not?

Because the MOST UNEXPECTING one might be the one who ENDS UP PROVIDING the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATIONAL INFORMATION.

Unfortunately, this is not a response to my arguments. It does not address the issue that we are always choosing and so perhaps missing THE MOST INSIGHT and INSPIRATIONAL INFORMATION, and that it is a strategy to increase our chances of not missing it that we ALL, including you, focus on some forums, articles, people, programs, books, writers, philosophers and so on and not others.

But you couldn't be bothered to address what I wrote and simply restated your position.

You've also demonstrated that, in fact, you my response to you was correct, above.

[Age]

I am very glad you agree with me, then. Earlier posts of yours, for example the one below, seemed to indicate you thought putting people on ignore was wrong, per se.



You seemed to be assuming that if someone puts someone on ignore, that person is saying no one should listen to that person, when in fact it is simply, for me anyway, a way of making it easier to see what I am more likely to find interesting and not to see what I tend not to find interesting.

Just to make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, I NEVER ASSUMED ANY such thing.

In fact, what I was ACTUALLY THINKING WAS; that if someone puts another on ignore, then that one is saying that they do not want to listen to what the other one is saying, no matter what they have to say, and that absolutely EVERY one is WORTHY of being LISTENED to AND HEARD. This is because ABSOLUTELY EVERY one is born ABSOLUTELY WORTHY and DESERVING OF being HEARD, and LISTENED TO.

As I said earlier in the thread we all do this in a variety of ways....

Because the MOST UNEXPECTING one might be the one who ENDS UP PROVIDING the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATIONAL INFORMATION.

Unfortunately, this is not a response to my arguments.

LOL what do you think or BELIEVE you are 'arguing' for, EXACTLY?

It does not address the issue that we are always choosing and so perhaps missing THE MOST INSIGHT and INSPIRATIONAL INFORMATION,

That you are ALWAYS CHOOSING has NEVER been in DISPUTE, by me.

OF COURSE ALL that CAN CHOOSE ARE CHOOSING. I thought I made this VERY CLEAR when I SAID, and ASKED:

OF COURSE.

Was there ANY reason or NEED to express what is OBVIOUSLY Truly OBVIOUS?

In reply to what you had SAID, and WRITTEN, about the SAME

and that it is a strategy to increase our chances of not missing it that we ALL, including you, focus on some forums, articles, people, programs, books, writers, philosophers and so on and not others.

BUT, as it can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED, MOST of 'you' CHOOSE what you READ, HEAR, and SEE, NOT so that you do NOT MISS obtaining and gathering the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION, but so you GAIN and GATHER MORE 'confirmation' on what you ALREADY BELIEVE or ASSUME is true. YOUR BIASES are SO BLATATANLY OBVIOUS, and who and what you REMOVE from HAVING TO 'listen to', or who you put on your IGNORE LISTS, just REAFFIRMS what 'it' is that is being BELIEVED and ASSUMED is ALREADY True, Right, and/or Correct.

But you couldn't be bothered to address what I wrote and simply restated your position.

I addressed what you wrote when I SAID:

OF COURSE, and QUESTIONED you as to WHY you WROTE what was OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUS.

You've also demonstrated that, in fact, you my response to you was correct, above.
[/quote]

Let me make this VERY CLEAR.

I have NEVER disputed that adult human beings CHOOSE who AND what they LOOK AT and LISTEN TO. That they do this is BECAUSE they BELIEVE and ASSUME (in) some things being ALREADY true. But I WILL DISPUTE that 'you', adult human beings, CHOOSE who AND what to LOOK AT and LISTEN TO just IN CASE you MISS the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION.

If one was Truly OPEN, to NOT MISSING the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION, then they would ALREADY KNOW that 'that' INFORMATION could come from ABSOLUTELY ANY ONE, from ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE, and at ABSOLUTELY ANY time. SO, they would NOT SHUT "themselves" OFF NOR CLOSE "themselves" OFF to, NOR from, ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

These ones KNOW that the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION or KNOWLEDGE CAN come from the MOST UNEXPECTED PLACES.

[Iwannaplato]

LOL what do you think or BELIEVE you are 'arguing' for, EXACTLY?

It's ok with me if you don't know. Others will.

That you are ALWAYS CHOOSING has NEVER been in DISPUTE, by me.

OF COURSE ALL that CAN CHOOSE ARE CHOOSING. I thought I made this VERY CLEAR when I SAID, and ASKED:

OF COURSE.

Was there ANY reason or NEED to express what is OBVIOUSLY Truly OBVIOUS?

Sure, because you argue against using foe on the grounds that one may miss the MOST INSPIRATIONAL POST. You don't seem to understand that that is a possibility REGARDLESS. Or, you wouldn't make that argument.

BUT, as it can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED, MOST of 'you' CHOOSE what you READ, HEAR, and SEE, NOT so that you do NOT MISS obtaining and gathering the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION, but so you GAIN and GATHER MORE 'confirmation' on what you ALREADY BELIEVE or ASSUME is true.

Nope. A very self-serving 'observation'. I have always engaged with people I disagree with who can respond to points I make and make interesting points. In fact most of the people I have contact with in another forum I disagree with politically, but I find they actually
know better (in that forum) how to have a useful discussion.

You seem to need this be true AND you still can't manage to respond to the main point I made.
I

Let me make this VERY CLEAR.

If one was Truly OPEN, to NOT MISSING the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION, then they would ALREADY KNOW that 'that' INFORMATION could come from ABSOLUTELY ANY ONE, from ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE, and at ABSOLUTELY ANY time. SO, they would NOT SHUT "themselves" OFF NOR CLOSE "themselves" OFF to, NOR from, ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

Of course it could. I know that you repetitive wall. But I also know, after years of having the seemingly loving and deep position you have, that if I am picky, I get more INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRING INFORMATION ALL THE TIME.

See, to be confident in your self-righteousness, your smugness, that showed through in the first post you made in this thread and continues until you last....you need to avoid things, avoid again responding to the main point, avoid admitting that everyone including you decides to favor some sources and cut out others. You do the same thing. You could be on some racist forum, where everyone generally defends their racism, but sometimes writes about other things, even with some thought or warmth. But you don't go there. You CHOOSE to go to some forums over others. YOu spend more time with people on philosophy forums than on other kinds of forums. You choose to spend time in dialogue with certain people who become friends and not others who do not. You watch certain films and not others. Despite the fact that someone you choose not to be friends with might have told you the most amazing thing about life. Or certain kinds of films you avoid might have a scene that changes the way you think.

But if other people make choices you present yourself as the oh, so good, and open and.....bullshit.

Well, I already wrote all this. And your choice not to respond to that speaks volumes. You want this moral high ground so it is almost physically impossible for you to respond to the point where you would either have to lie or admit that you to avoid some people and focus on others.

And it's stuff like this that leads people to put you on ignore, and so back you go on ignore.

I'll probably check in again. or not.

But there are so many people's posts I did not read while responding here to your post AND THOSE POSTS I would guess are vastly more likely and certainly not less likely to be THE MOST INSPIRING POST I EVER READ. Yes, duh, your next one might be, but I, JUST LIKE YOU, make choices about where I spend most of my energy and time.

[Age]

LOL what do you think or BELIEVE you are 'arguing' for, EXACTLY?

It's ok with me if you don't know. Others will.

ANOTHER one who INSTEAD of just CLARIFYING their position or past CLAIMS, resorts to making these types of remarks. As though it is I who is the STUPID one.

If one can NOT CLARIFY, back up nor support, nor ELABORATE on the PREVIOUS WORDING, then I sugges they REFRAIN from WRITING here.

That you are ALWAYS CHOOSING has NEVER been in DISPUTE, by me.

OF COURSE ALL that CAN CHOOSE ARE CHOOSING. I thought I made this VERY CLEAR when I SAID, and ASKED:

OF COURSE.

Was there ANY reason or NEED to express what is OBVIOUSLY Truly OBVIOUS?

Sure, because you argue against using foe on the grounds that one may miss the MOST INSPIRATIONAL POST. You don't seem to understand that that is a possibility REGARDLESS. Or, you wouldn't make that argument.

I NEVER made 'that argument' BECAUSE I am NOT 'arguing' FOR nor AGAINST absolutely ANY thing here.

BUT, as it can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED, MOST of 'you' CHOOSE what you READ, HEAR, and SEE, NOT so that you do NOT MISS obtaining and gathering the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION, but so you GAIN and GATHER MORE 'confirmation' on what you ALREADY BELIEVE or ASSUME is true.

Nope. A very self-serving 'observation'. I have always engaged with people I disagree with you can respond to points I make and make interesting points. In fact most of the people I have contract with in another forum I disagree with politically, but I find they actually
know better (in that forum) how to have a useful discussion.

What are you ACTUALLY SAYING 'Nope' to, EXACTLY?

I think you WILL FIND that what you ARE ASSUMING I AM SAYING and MEANING is IN FACT NOT what I was SAYING, nor MEANING.

You seem to need this be true AND you still can't manage to respond to the main point I made.

I seem to NEED 'what' to be true, EXACTLY?

Let me make this VERY CLEAR.

If one was Truly OPEN, to NOT MISSING the MOST INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRATION INFORMATION, then they would ALREADY KNOW that 'that' INFORMATION could come from ABSOLUTELY ANY ONE, from ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE, and at ABSOLUTELY ANY time. SO, they would NOT SHUT "themselves" OFF NOR CLOSE "themselves" OFF to, NOR from, ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

Of course it could. I know that you repetative idiot.

Are you NOT NOTICING how you are RE-REPEATING what I have ALREADY CONCLUDED WITH YOU IS OBVIOUS?

But I also know, after years of having the moronic position you have,

So, although you AGREE that what I SAID is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct, you STILL CALL 'it' a MORONIC POSITION.

that if I am picky, I get more INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRING INFORMATION ALL THE TIME.

LOL "ALL THE TIME".

Would you like to SHARE some of this MORE INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRING INFORMATION that you are GETTING, ALL THE TIME?

If no, then WHY NOT?

AND, HOW WOULD YOU EVEN KNOW that you are NOT MISING out on MORE INSIGHTFUL and INSPIRING INFORMATION if you are, as you call 'it', 'PICKY', with what you DO and DO NOT read?

The CONTRADICTION and INCONSISTENCY here is STRIKING.

See, you stupid little, condescending self-righteous p****....you avoid again responding to the main point. You do the same thing. You could be on some racist forum, where everyone generally defends their racism. But you don't go there. You CHOOSE to go to some forums over others. YOu spend more time with people on philosophy forums than on other kinds of forums. You choose to....

ARE YOU BLIND, and/or DEAF?

I have HAD TO CONTINUALLY STATE that I AGREE WITH YOU that 'you', adult human beings, are VERY, VERY CHOOSY, or PICKY, on what you READ and LISTEN TO and what you DO NOT READ, nor LISTEN TO.

How MANY TIMES do I have RE-REPEAT this BEFORE you COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that I AGREE TOTALLY with THIS MAIN POINT of YOURS?

And just so you BECOME MORE AWARE I am ONLY DISAGREEING on the VERY REASON you are PROVIDING, and are 'trying to' "justify" for YOUR CHOOSINESS and PICKINESS.

I have ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN that YOUR REASONS are NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL, and are just EXCUSES for NOT wanting to LISTEN TO what SOME "others" have to SAY.

And, AGAIN, you do this BECAUSE you just want CONFIRMATION for your OWN BIASES. As this you have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN.

Well, I already wrote all this. And your choice not to respond to that speaks volumes. You want this moral high ground so it is almost physically impossible for you to respond to the point where you would either have to lie or admit that you to avoid some people and focus on others.

LOL "WANT this moral high ground".

If what I am just SAYING and SHOWING is PROVING a FAR MORE HIGHER MORAL HIGHGROUND than the one you are 'trying to' USE to 'try to' "justify" YOUR POSITION for what you do, then so be it. That is just the way things ARE here.

And it's shit like this that leads people to put you on ignore, back you go.

ANOTHER one 'trying to' "justify" THEIR REASONS for NOT wanting to LISTEN to what "another" has to say.

AS SOON as some of these people are PROVED Wrong or Incorrect, almost immediately the "other" is put in the IGNORE list.

Which SAYS and SHOWS a LOT about the mentality of the adult human population, in the days when this was being written.

I'll probably check in again. or not.

But there are so many people's posts I did not read while responding to your post AND THOSE POSTS I would guess are vastly more likely and certainly not less likely to be THE MOST INSPIRING POST I EVER READ.

And, EXACTLY as I was SAYING, and PROVING, 'you' would NEVER KNOW.

[Iwannaplato]

Hm, I could read Age's previous post,w hich I can't see now, or I could see what Veritas has recently written. I disagree with VA on many things, but HIS mistakes and misrepresentations are vastly more interesting. At least he introduces a wide range of ideas, even if he often is not clear about them. And there's only so much time in the day, so I'll go read VA. CHoices. I know it's hard for Age to realize WHY people choose not to read him, but it's probably the most useful, insightful feedback he'll get, which unfortunately means he's ignored it so far.

[Phil8659]

I agree with your assessment of Age, but I also have FlashDanerpants also.

I don't mind getting roughed up, but that pair, in my estimation should not even be allowed on this site.

Nick_A, because he either lies intentionally, or he is just way too stupid. Now, stupidity is not anything to worry about until they are both stupid and vicious. All three in one person is just too much.

Some people act just like a mini-dog who gets all excited because they got a leg to hump.

[FlashDangerpants]

I agree with your assessment of Age, but I also have FlashDanerpants also.

I don't mind getting roughed up, but that pair, in my estimation should not even be allowed on this site.

Nick_A, because he either lies intentionally, or he is just way too stupid. Now, stupidity is not anything to worry about until they are both stupid and vicious. All three in one person is just too much.

Some people act just like a mini-dog who gets all excited because they got a leg to hump.

Lol, I have been judged lacking by the guy with Delusional Disorder who thinks God has empowered him to be the only human who can understand the Bible.

[uwot]

Lol, I have been judged lacking by the guy with Delusional Disorder who thinks God has empowered him to be the only human who can understand the Bible.

Gotta take issue with you there FlashDangerpants. Calling Phil810 "the guy with Delusional Disorder who thinks God has empowered him to be the only human who can understand the Bible" makes it sound like he's the only one. This will confuse the other guys with Delusional Disorder who think God has empowered them to be the only human who can understand the Bible

[FlashDangerpants]

Lol, I have been judged lacking by the guy with Delusional Disorder who thinks God has empowered him to be the only human who can understand the Bible.

Gotta take issue with you there FlashDangerpants. Calling Phil810 "the guy with Delusional Disorder who thinks God has empowered him to be the only human who can understand the Bible" makes it sound like he's the only one. This will confuse the other guys with Delusional Disorder who think God has empowered them to be the only human who can understand the Bible

Does it narrow things down any further if we highlight his wonderful boast that because of his magnificent IQ his friends have sent their wives to him for extramarital satisfaction?

Or did Bobevenson claim that one too?