A loser is a loser is a loser.

[Age]

Ok, the word "idiot" means fool/moron/dumb/dunderhead/blockhead/numskull/retard/cretin/shmuck/ass.

Is that WHEN one is, supposedly, 'trying to' be humorous and funny, or WHEN they are NOT being funny AT ALL?

Also, I WAS CURIOS as to what that word MEANT to the 'one' who USED that word, in the context that they USED 'it'.

You'll have to talk to God mon ami.

Would it NOT be EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to just ASK the 'one' who USED 'that word', INSTEAD, EXACTLY LIKE I DID?

[Agent Smith]

Is that WHEN one is, supposedly, 'trying to' be humorous and funny, or WHEN they are NOT being funny AT ALL?

Also, I WAS CURIOS as to what that word MEANT to the 'one' who USED that word, in the context that they USED 'it'.

You'll have to talk to God mon ami.

Would it NOT be EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to just ASK the 'one' who USED 'that word', INSTEAD, EXACTLY LIKE I DID?

Not in my world, no!

[Agent Smith]

Is that WHEN one is, supposedly, 'trying to' be humorous and funny, or WHEN they are NOT being funny AT ALL?

Also, I WAS CURIOS as to what that word MEANT to the 'one' who USED that word, in the context that they USED 'it'.

You'll have to talk to God mon ami.

I'm too busy.

[attofishpi]

Ah okay. So when 'you' CALL "others" 'idiots' 'you' are just being funny and humorous, and NOT MEANING ANY 'thing' ELSE, right?

NO. When I call people (usually you) an idiot, I actually mean that I DO think they are an idiot. NB> IDIOT means SILLY\STUPID person.

So, just to CLARIFY, 'you' DO think that 'I' am a SILLY/STUPID person, right?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN?

When I was stating that you don't comprehend humour, it was what you overlooked and took me seriously with my 'advice' to Gary.

But HOW do 'you' KNOW that I, SUPPOSEDLY, OVERLOOKED 'that', and took 'you' SERIOUSLY?

I could have CLEARLY SEEN what you were ATTEMPTING TO DO, but was just SHOWING how SHALLOW, RIDICULOUS, and 'self-CENTERED' some people REALLY WERE, back in those OLDEN DAYS when this WAS being written.

For example and in a similar vein:-

Why did God give women legs?

So that they can walk between the kitchen, the laundry and the bedroom without leaving a snail trail.

Is this supposed to be so-called 'humor' and 'funny'?

If yes, then is there ANY one else in this forum that SEES or THINKS 'this'?

How many of 'those' with vaginas SEE or THINK 'this' is funny, and, how many of 'those' with penises SEE or THINK 'this' is funny?

Now that last bit was really funny..let's see what the human beings that have vaginas and the human beings that have penises think.

Do you think if any of them found it funny that it would more likely be a human being with a vagina or a human being with a penis? IF yes PLEASE clarify WHY you THINK so.

[Age]

You'll have to talk to God mon ami.

Would it NOT be EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to just ASK the 'one' who USED 'that word', INSTEAD, EXACTLY LIKE I DID?

Not in my world, no!

So, when human beings USE 'words', you find it EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to 'talk to God', then to just ASK the speaker/writer of THOSE 'words' what they ACTUAL MEANT or what they were REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, if this is what you are SAYING and MEANING here, 'in your world', then 'I' do NOT necessarily DISAGREE with you AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout this forum, it is EASIER and SIMPLER to get 'blood from stone', as some say, than it is getting to FINDING OUT what a 'poster' is ACTUALLY MEANING and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, with the 'words' that they USE here.

There is NOW, SURELY, NO WONDER WHY these people, back in these OLDEN DAYS, WERE STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED. They, LITERALLY, did NOT even KNOW what 'they', "themselves", were even talking ABOUT and MEANING.

[Agent Smith]

Would it NOT be EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to just ASK the 'one' who USED 'that word', INSTEAD, EXACTLY LIKE I DID?

Not in my world, no!

So, when human beings USE 'words', you find it EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to 'talk to God', then to just ASK the speaker/writer of THOSE 'words' what they ACTUAL MEANT or what they were REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, if this is what you are SAYING and MEANING here, 'in your world', then 'I' do NOT necessarily DISAGREE with you AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout this forum, it is EASIER and SIMPLER to get 'blood from stone', as some say, than it is getting to FINDING OUT what a 'poster' is ACTUALLY MEANING and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, with the 'words' that they USE here.

There is NOW, SURELY, NO WONDER WHY these people, back in these OLDEN DAYS, WERE STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED. They, LITERALLY, did NOT even KNOW what 'they', "themselves", were even talking ABOUT and MEANING.

Mon ami, mon ami, (don't) trust me, talk to God.

[Age]

NO. When I call people (usually you) an idiot, I actually mean that I DO think they are an idiot. NB> IDIOT means SILLY\STUPID person.

So, just to CLARIFY, 'you' DO think that 'I' am a SILLY/STUPID person, right?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN?

When I was stating that you don't comprehend humour, it was what you overlooked and took me seriously with my 'advice' to Gary.

But HOW do 'you' KNOW that I, SUPPOSEDLY, OVERLOOKED 'that', and took 'you' SERIOUSLY?

I could have CLEARLY SEEN what you were ATTEMPTING TO DO, but was just SHOWING how SHALLOW, RIDICULOUS, and 'self-CENTERED' some people REALLY WERE, back in those OLDEN DAYS when this WAS being written.

For example and in a similar vein:-

Why did God give women legs?

So that they can walk between the kitchen, the laundry and the bedroom without leaving a snail trail.

Is this supposed to be so-called 'humor' and 'funny'?

If yes, then is there ANY one else in this forum that SEES or THINKS 'this'?

How many of 'those' with vaginas SEE or THINK 'this' is funny, and, how many of 'those' with penises SEE or THINK 'this' is funny?

Now that last bit was really funny..let's see what the human beings that have vaginas and the human beings that have penises think.

Do you think if any of them found it funny that it would more likely be a human being with a vagina or a human being with a penis? IF yes PLEASE clarify WHY you THINK so.

EVEN 'your' QUESTION here is ASKED in a NONSENSICAL WAY.

What do you MEAN by, 'IF yes ...'?

you ACTUALLY ASKED, 'Do you think it would more likely be a human being with a vagina or a human being with a penis?' So, the ANSWER would include WHICH ONE I think, and would NOT include a 'yes' NOR a 'no'.

But, to ANSWER YOUR QUESTION here, I WOULD 'think' it would MORE LIKELY be those human bodies with penises that would think that STATEMENT and CLAIM of 'yours' was so-called 'funny'. I WOULD 'think' 'this' BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, have 'grown up', (and I use that term VERY LOOSELY here), LEARNING to RIDICULE and BELITTLE "others" and do 'this' in A WAY that 'you' THINK is so-called 'funny'. WHY 'you' do this with a 'humorous' or 'funny' 'overtone' to the RIDICULING and BELITTLING is so that 'you' can 'TRY TO' "justify" to "yourselves" that 'this' is 'okay' and 'all right' behavior. But the REALLY FUNNY 'thing' to OBSERVE and WATCH here is that when the EXACT SAME 'thing' is done BACK to 'those' like 'you' "attosfishpi" 'you' are the ones who CRY, COMPLAIN, or FIGHT BACK the MOST.

Also, and by the way, the reason WHY 'you' 'TRY TO' RIDICULE and BELITTLE 'those' with DIFFERENT genitals is WHEN you have run out of "others" of DIFFERENT 'groups' to RIDICULE and/or PICK ON, and you do this BECAUSE of VERY LOW 'self-esteem' and THINKING that 'you', and 'your group' are MORE SUPERIOR to 'THEM', IN THOSE "OTHER" 'GROUPS'.

I COULD GO ON and ON with FAR MORE EXPLANATIONS and REASONS, and WITH EACH one of them backing up and supporting ALL of the PREVIOUS EXPLANATIONS and REASONS, leading to A Truly UNIFIED, and IRREFUTABLE BIG Picture here. That is; if you would LIKE ME TO.

[Age]

Not in my world, no!

So, when human beings USE 'words', you find it EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to 'talk to God', then to just ASK the speaker/writer of THOSE 'words' what they ACTUAL MEANT or what they were REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, if this is what you are SAYING and MEANING here, 'in your world', then 'I' do NOT necessarily DISAGREE with you AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout this forum, it is EASIER and SIMPLER to get 'blood from stone', as some say, than it is getting to FINDING OUT what a 'poster' is ACTUALLY MEANING and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, with the 'words' that they USE here.

There is NOW, SURELY, NO WONDER WHY these people, back in these OLDEN DAYS, WERE STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED. They, LITERALLY, did NOT even KNOW what 'they', "themselves", were even talking ABOUT and MEANING.

Mon ami, mon ami, (don't) trust me, talk to God.

BUT IF 'you' were being Truly OPEN and Honest here, then WHY would I NOT trust you?

And, what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between talking to 'you' and talking to 'God' when FROM WITHIN 'you' ABSOLUTE Honesty and OPENNESS is being SPOKEN?

[Agent Smith]

So, when human beings USE 'words', you find it EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE PRODUCTIVE to 'talk to God', then to just ASK the speaker/writer of THOSE 'words' what they ACTUAL MEANT or what they were REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, if this is what you are SAYING and MEANING here, 'in your world', then 'I' do NOT necessarily DISAGREE with you AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN throughout this forum, it is EASIER and SIMPLER to get 'blood from stone', as some say, than it is getting to FINDING OUT what a 'poster' is ACTUALLY MEANING and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, with the 'words' that they USE here.

There is NOW, SURELY, NO WONDER WHY these people, back in these OLDEN DAYS, WERE STILL SO LOST and CONFUSED. They, LITERALLY, did NOT even KNOW what 'they', "themselves", were even talking ABOUT and MEANING.

Mon ami, mon ami, (don't) trust me, talk to God.

BUT IF 'you' were being Truly OPEN and Honest here, then WHY would I NOT trust you?

And, what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between talking to 'you' and talking to 'God' when FROM WITHIN 'you' ABSOLUTE Honesty and OPENNESS is being SPOKEN?

Don't look at me, bruh! I'm not the one drinkin' imported wine

[attofishpi]

So, just to CLARIFY, 'you' DO think that 'I' am a SILLY/STUPID person, right?

If yes, then WHY?

But if no, then what do 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN?


But HOW do 'you' KNOW that I, SUPPOSEDLY, OVERLOOKED 'that', and took 'you' SERIOUSLY?

I could have CLEARLY SEEN what you were ATTEMPTING TO DO, but was just SHOWING how SHALLOW, RIDICULOUS, and 'self-CENTERED' some people REALLY WERE, back in those OLDEN DAYS when this WAS being written.


Is this supposed to be so-called 'humor' and 'funny'?

If yes, then is there ANY one else in this forum that SEES or THINKS 'this'?

How many of 'those' with vaginas SEE or THINK 'this' is funny, and, how many of 'those' with penises SEE or THINK 'this' is funny?

Now that last bit was really funny..let's see what the human beings that have vaginas and the human beings that have penises think.

Do you think if any of them found it funny that it would more likely be a human being with a vagina or a human being with a penis? IF yes PLEASE clarify WHY you THINK so.

EVEN 'your' QUESTION here is ASKED in a NONSENSICAL WAY.

What do you MEAN by, 'IF yes ...'?

True...it was a tad rushed. If YES (that you think someone would find it funny) is IT more LIKELY that A human BEING with A penis OR a HUMAN being WITH a VAGINA would HAVE found IT funny?

Better?

[Walker]

I'm negative. I'm resentful. I'm bitter. I'm fed up with other people and I'm fed up with God's world. Now what?

I am ... I am ... I am ... I am ... Now what?

Gary, this does not illustrate e-prime.

Answer to the question: Write something that does illustrate e-prime.

Loosed losers with loose lips sink ships.

[Age]

Mon ami, mon ami, (don't) trust me, talk to God.

BUT IF 'you' were being Truly OPEN and Honest here, then WHY would I NOT trust you?

And, what IS the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between talking to 'you' and talking to 'God' when FROM WITHIN 'you' ABSOLUTE Honesty and OPENNESS is being SPOKEN?

Don't look at me, bruh! I'm not the one drinkin' imported wine

Just so you are aware I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue what this is MEANING nor REFERRING TO.

[Age]

Now that last bit was really funny..let's see what the human beings that have vaginas and the human beings that have penises think.

Do you think if any of them found it funny that it would more likely be a human being with a vagina or a human being with a penis? IF yes PLEASE clarify WHY you THINK so.

EVEN 'your' QUESTION here is ASKED in a NONSENSICAL WAY.

What do you MEAN by, 'IF yes ...'?

True...it was a tad rushed. If YES (that you think someone would find it funny) is IT more LIKELY that A human BEING with A penis OR a HUMAN being WITH a VAGINA would HAVE found IT funny?

Better?

Yes.

[Age]

I'm negative. I'm resentful. I'm bitter. I'm fed up with other people and I'm fed up with God's world. Now what?

I am ... I am ... I am ... I am ... Now what?

Gary, this does not illustrate e-prime.

Answer to the question: Write something that does illustrate e-prime.

Loosed losers with loose lips sink ships.

What does 'e-prime' mean or refer to, to you?

[Walker]

What does 'e-prime' mean or refer to, to you?

e-prime transmission to Age:

Age, you have aided in the real time experience of an interesting phenomenon, an insight, a realization. You may ask for specifics, so I’ll tell you. I realize that I have grown so accustomed to your capitalistic formatting that my brain has organically rewired to process what at first seemed like a strange way to write, and rather bothersome.

Now, the Cap Realm of Age has quietly become a form of written language that no longer distracts. Understanding the capped words that used to knee-cap the known no longer requires the halting, pausing addition of a translation into the customary formatting of no-cap.

Like the anomalous person who somehow processes mathematical functions with the visual cortex of the brain to arrive at instant truth, the shift to no-CAPs, after creating the brain pathway that naturally processes the CAPs, indicates change. Change pauses attention.

e-prime writing also rewires the brain so that one begins to apprehend the world in new ways. The beauty of this appears after the halting, stumbling translation phase of translating thought into e-prime, ends. After using e-prime for awhile, the new brain wiring can activate when required. With just thought one can take a vacation from influencers such as apprehension, comprehension, and habitual transmissions. No need to visit Hawaii.

Why bother with this? Why, in order to apprehend meaning that lies beyond the routine and habitual, i.e., to taste the supramundane (by definition) while seeking the right words. This expands awareness, which adds a higher vantage point to the here and now (higher defined as the available lookout point with longest total horizon.) This applies mindfulness to writing.

In other words, subtract “to be,” from all writing that references past, present, and future. The benefit reveals through the doing of e-prime, not the speculating about e-prime.

If every e-prime infraction received a whack across the shoulders with a stick, the brain would quickly rewire the attic and permit light to shine into previously unexplored places.