The Sun Also Sets

[Age]

Do you believe that the Chinese government which is currently saber rattling against us and which has a navy that now exceeds our own in raw numbers promoted cannibalism as mentioned in the Wiki article I linked? Do you believe that the Chinese people in the province referred to in the article linked practiced cannibalism? Yes, no, maybe, possibly, no way?

Or do you think the Wiki article is propaganda?

THe US is sabre rattling, not China. Take a look at the bases dotted around in SE Asia.
Why do you think a massacre is relevant here?

Because, if it is the case that the Chinese government is somehow responsible for what allegedly happened in that province, then maybe the US has been equally right all along to distance itself from China and any governments that follow more or less in that vein.

This one here is PROVIDING GREAT examples of just how NARROWED the views WERE, and how SMALL a field their viewpoints extended, in a LOT of the adults, BACK in the days when this WAS being written.

If you read the article it's pretty surreal (at least to me). I suspect propaganda (either theirs or ours) could be involved and therefore it's not true in whatever sense, but I can't say it with 100% certainty.

If you do NOT have 100% CERTAINTY, then WHY even bring 'this' INTO 'this' or ANY discussion?

It makes a guy wonder about who our fellow humans are and what they're capable of. Granted, the US hasn't been an angel, but one might wonder if being an angel isn't perhaps a recipe for being dinner in this world for anyone who tries it.

'you', 'gary childress", here could NOT be PROVIDING a MORE PERFECT example of one who IS SO CLOSED, and ONE "sided".

[Gary Childress]

It makes a guy wonder about who our fellow humans are and what they're capable of. Granted, the US hasn't been an angel, but one might wonder if being an angel isn't perhaps a recipe for being dinner in this world for anyone who tries it.

'you', 'gary childress", here could NOT be PROVIDING a MORE PERFECT example of one who IS SO CLOSED, and ONE "sided".

Should I not be "closed" to cannibalism?

[Gary Childress]

I ONLY BELIEVE one 'thing' and what you ASKED here is NOT 'it'.

What is the "one thing" you believe?

[Age]

It makes a guy wonder about who our fellow humans are and what they're capable of. Granted, the US hasn't been an angel, but one might wonder if being an angel isn't perhaps a recipe for being dinner in this world for anyone who tries it.

'you', 'gary childress", here could NOT be PROVIDING a MORE PERFECT example of one who IS SO CLOSED, and ONE "sided".

Should I not be "closed" to cannibalism?

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have managed to COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISS the WHOLE POINT being made.

If 'you' were NOT SO CLOSED a 'person' as 'you' ARE, then I would start to wonder if 'you' are purposely 'trying to' to DEFLECT here.

[Age]

I ONLY BELIEVE one 'thing' and what you ASKED here is NOT 'it'.

What is the "one thing" you believe?

Thee 'Self', and 'Its' ABILITY to DO and ACHIEVE whatever 'Its' sets out to DO, and ACHIEVE.

[Gary Childress]

I ONLY BELIEVE one 'thing' and what you ASKED here is NOT 'it'.

What is the "one thing" you believe?

Thee 'Self', and 'Its' ABILITY to DO and ACHIEVE whatever 'Its' sets out to DO, and ACHIEVE.

Can the self "do and achieve" whatever it sets out to do and achieve?

[Age]

What is the "one thing" you believe?

Thee 'Self', and 'Its' ABILITY to DO and ACHIEVE whatever 'Its' sets out to DO, and ACHIEVE.

Can the self "do and achieve" whatever it sets out to do and achieve?

The 'Self' CERTAINLY CAN, and IS.

But can the 'self' known here as "gary childress"?

The ANSWER to 'this QUESTION WILL PROVIDE 'you' WITH the ANSWER to the QUESTION 'you' ASKED here.

[Gary Childress]

Thee 'Self', and 'Its' ABILITY to DO and ACHIEVE whatever 'Its' sets out to DO, and ACHIEVE.

Can the self "do and achieve" whatever it sets out to do and achieve?

The 'Self' CERTAINLY CAN, and IS.

But can the 'self' known here as "gary childress"?

The ANSWER to 'this QUESTION WILL PROVIDE 'you' WITH the ANSWER to the QUESTION 'you' ASKED here.

If you are saying that you believe the self can do and achieve "whatever" it SETS OUT to do and achieve; and if by "whatever" you mean anything and all things, then I disagree. If by "whatever" you mean "whatever" it CAN do instead of "whatever" it SETS OUT to do, then I agree. However, most things I "can" do now are not things that have a lot of significance to me anymore (if they ever had it at all).

[Age]

Can the self "do and achieve" whatever it sets out to do and achieve?

The 'Self' CERTAINLY CAN, and IS.

But can the 'self' known here as "gary childress"?

The ANSWER to 'this QUESTION WILL PROVIDE 'you' WITH the ANSWER to the QUESTION 'you' ASKED here.

If you are saying that you believe the self can do and achieve "whatever" it SETS OUT to do and achieve; and if by "whatever" you mean anything and all things, then I disagree.

Well I NEVER even said 'that' AND NEVER would, let alone MEANT 'that'.

AND, while 'you' CONTINUE TO NEVER SEEK CLARITY 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT. 'you' WILL just KEEP CONTINUALLY DOING what 'you' ARE SHOWING TO ALL of 'us' here now and that is; JUST ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING 'things', WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL CLARIFICATION BEING OBTAINED FIRSTLY.

If by "whatever" you mean "whatever" it CAN do instead of "whatever" it SETS OUT to do, then I agree.

WHY do 'you' 'now' SAY and CALL 'self' an 'it'? BEFORE 'you' seemed SO ADAMANT about doing such a 'thing' being SO, SO WRONG.

ALSO, if one Truly BELIEVES that 'it' CAN DO what 'it' SETS OUT TO DO, THEN, and ONLY THEN, 'it' WILL ACHIEVE 'it', (whatever this 'it' IS).

However, most things I "can" do now are not things that have a lot of significance to me anymore (if they ever had it at all).

SO WHAT?

'you' seem to ALWAYS BE thinking that 'Life' or the Universe CENTERS AROUND 'you' "gary childress".

Are 'you' AWARE that 'they' DO NOT?

[Gary Childress]

AND, while 'you' CONTINUE TO NEVER SEEK CLARITY 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT. 'you' WILL just KEEP CONTINUALLY DOING what 'you' ARE SHOWING TO ALL of 'us' here now and that is; JUST ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING 'things', WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL CLARIFICATION BEING OBTAINED FIRSTLY.

You are free to clarify your point you know. You don't necessarily have to tell me that I "continue to NEVER seek clarity". Friggen "clarify" then. I'm not going to play 20 questions with you. If you have something to clarify then clarify it and don't worry about whether I'm seeking "clarity" in the way you want me to. Just C L A R I F Y.

[Age]

AND, while 'you' CONTINUE TO NEVER SEEK CLARITY 'you' WILL NEVER KNOW what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT. 'you' WILL just KEEP CONTINUALLY DOING what 'you' ARE SHOWING TO ALL of 'us' here now and that is; JUST ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING 'things', WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL CLARIFICATION BEING OBTAINED FIRSTLY.

You are free to clarify your point you know.

I KNOW I AM.

AND, I KNEW 'this' WELL BEFORE I CAME INTO this FORUM.

But, as I KEEP INFORMING 'you' I HAVE MY PURPOSE FOR NOT DOING SO.

SEE, I am SHOWING, WITH ACTUAL PROOF, FROM 'you', respondents, here, HOW, for example, IF the people who BELIEVED that the sun revolves around the earth HAD REFRAINED "themselves" FROM HOLDING 'their BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS', and INSTEAD HAD SHOWN ACTUAL INTEREST, and CURIOSITY, in the VIEW and CLAIM that ACTUALLY it IS the earth that does revolve around the earth, then 'thee ACTUAL Truth' here COULD HAVE and WOULD HAVE BECOME KNOWN MUCH EARLIER, and WITHOUT ALL OF THE UNNECESSARY CRAP, or 'heartache' as some might call 'it'.

In other words, 'you', human beings, CAN and DO PROGRESS, EVOLVE, or MORE FORWARD MUCH QUICKER, MUCH SIMPLER, and MUCH EASIER IF, and WHEN, 'you' ARE Truly OPEN, INTERESTED, and CURIOUS. AND, 'you' MOVE MUCH SLOWER, MUCH MORE AWKWARDLY, and MUCH MORE CLUMSILY, WHEN 'you' HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN 'your' CURRENT ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. Which, 'you', people, here, in the days when this is being written, ARE LIVING PROVING OF.

See, now that I HAVE BEEN USING 'you', people, AS ACTUAL PROOF, there is absolutely NO one, in the 'future' to 'you', people, who COULD even 'try to' DENY that HAVING, HOLDING, or MAINTAINING ANY BELIEF or ASSUMPTION IS A GOOD IDEA.

A Truly RATIONAL human being WOULD ALREADY KNOW 'this IRREFUTABLE Fact', just going by 'the stories', ALONE, TOLD of and about WHAT HAPPENED, BACK IN THE DAY, WHEN the 'new discovery' was being EXPRESSED, and SHARED. But 'stories' are NOT ENOUGH FOR SOME people.

So, I HAVE DECIDED TO GATHER, OBTAIN, SHARE, and USE ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth INSTEAD. SEE, absolutely NO of 'you', respondents, here were AWARE of BEING 'subjects' BEING USED in 'this test' and 'experiment', so NONE of 'you' could COME BACK SAYING, NOR CLAIMING, that 'you' ONLY SAID and DID what 'you' HAVE here for some reason ABOUT KNOWING what 'you' ARE BEING USED FOR, EXACTLY.

You don't necessarily have to tell me that I "continue to NEVER seek clarity". Friggen "clarify" then.

LOL 'you' could NOT HAVE PROVIDED A BETTER response here "gary childress".

SEE, even WHEN 'they' ARE SEEKING OUT some 'thing', they could NOT bring "themselves" to just BE OPEN, INTERESTED, and CURIOS.

Like 'they' ALL WERE, back WHEN 'they' were YOUNGER, back WHEN 'they' were WISER, and back WHEN 'they' were Truly INTELLIGENT.

See, what had HAPPENED TO 'them', through A VERY MISGUIDED 'educational-system' WAS that 'they' had GOTTEN SO RIDICULED and HUMILIATED FOR NOT KNOWING some 'things', that 'they' THEN BECAME SO SHY, and SO LACKING OF 'Self-esteem' to JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, IN CASE "the other" MIGHT LOOK AT 'them' as BEING so-called "dumb".

The ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INFORMATION and/or KNOWLEDGE that 'these people' were NOT GATHER and OBTAINING, just because 'they' WERE TO AFRAID TO ASK, was ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING, compared to what 'we' are HERE-NOW, in the days AFTER that 'life' HAD LONG GONE.

There was a saying, back then, about how they only used 10% of their brain capacity. What 'they' are SHOWING and REVEALING here EXPLAINS and SHOWS WHY.

I'm not going to play 20 questions with you.

Okay, and I am NOT going to PROVIDE 20, nor ANY number of ANSWERS, to 'those' who MAY, or MAY NOT, have absolutely ANY INTEREST AT ALL.

If you have something to clarify then clarify it

LOL
LOL
LOL

As I have CONTINUALLY SAID, and STATED, I have absolutely NO 'thing' TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE what I ALREADY KNOW IS JUST, (and IRREFUTABLE), ANYWAY.

See, I DO NOT HAVE TO 'show off' NOR have absolutely ANY 'need' TO 'explain' ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

HOWEVER, IF absolutely ANY one is Truly INTERESTED IN LEARNING, and COMING-TO-KNOW, ANY 'thing', relatively, NEW, then I AM MORE THAN WELCOME and WILLING TO SHARE.

Just LET ME KNOW what 'it' IS that 'you' would like to KNOW, and/or UNDERSTAND.

By the way, "gary childress", what I HAVE TO SAY, and TO CLARIFY, I WILL DO AT and IN some OTHER PLACE. This 'place', or forum, here is to REVERT BACK TO, to FIND and SEE 'the PROOF' OF what I WILL BE SAYING, and TALKING ABOUT.

and don't worry about whether I'm seeking "clarity" in the way you want me to.

LOL

IN what OTHER 'way' COULD one even 'seek clarity', other than, OF COURSE, JUST SEEKING CLARITY.

Oh, and by the way, I NEVER WANT 'you' to DO absolutely ANY 'thing' that 'you' do NOT, VOLUNTARILY, WANT TO DO "yourself", ANYWAY.

Just C L A R I F Y.

WHAT, EXACTLY?

[Walker]

So what?

Well, it's only everything.

What does the 'it' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM is ONLY 'everything'?

Re: the first quote* in this quote particular quote chain, e.g, thee quoting me. Or is it, thou? Anyway, it's the quote most indented and more importantly, it's the truth of the quote forming the words in the font style to which you've grown accustomed, and yet will not replicate except in, particular circumstances of combined elements as yet to be analytically defined. Do you agree?

* The mirror is as eternal as eteral can ever be, however, all reflections in the mirror are ... transitoree.

[Sculptor]

Do you believe that the Chinese government which is currently saber rattling against us and which has a navy that now exceeds our own in raw numbers promoted cannibalism as mentioned in the Wiki article I linked? Do you believe that the Chinese people in the province referred to in the article linked practiced cannibalism? Yes, no, maybe, possibly, no way?

Or do you think the Wiki article is propaganda?

THe US is sabre rattling, not China. Take a look at the bases dotted around in SE Asia.
Why do you think a massacre is relevant here?

Because, if it is the case that the Chinese government is somehow responsible for what allegedly happened in that province, then maybe the US has been equally right all along to distance itself from China and any governments that follow more or less in that vein. If you read the article it's pretty surreal (at least to me). I suspect propaganda (either theirs or ours) could be involved and therefore it's not true in whatever sense, but I can't say it with 100% certainty. It makes a guy wonder about who our fellow humans are and what they're capable of. Granted, the US hasn't been an angel, but one might wonder if being an angel isn't perhaps a recipe for being dinner in this world for anyone who tries it.

You need to look at America's own massacres. What about the people in Laos who are still being maimed by American ordinace left over from the Vietnam? What about the massacres of widespread areas of Vietnam during the 1960s, where whole regions were poisoned with Agent Orange causeing generations of birth mutations. These are just tow examples on China's border.
Now look at the Middle east, north Africa, south America.. Since 1945 the US has been massacreing people all over the world.
America is just so angelic.
Please check you exceptionalism.

[Sculptor]

Are you claiming that knowledge is justified true information in contradiction to your statement that knowledge is justified true belief?

No there is no contradiction

Because knowledge is both justified true belief and justified true information

Please define the difference between information and knowledge.

[Age]

Well, it's only everything.

What does the 'it' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM is ONLY 'everything'?

Re: the first quote*

But any and all mirrors are NOT eternal, NOR could ever even be close to being so.

in this quote particular quote chain, e.g, thee quoting me. Or is it, thou? Anyway, it's the quote most indented and more importantly, it's the truth of the quote forming the words in the font style to which you've grown accustomed, and yet will not replicate except in, particular circumstances of combined elements as yet to be analytically defined. Do you agree?

I do not even have a clue what you are getting at here, let alone agreeing with 'it'. Do you NOT agree?

* The mirror is as eternal as eteral can ever be, however, all reflections in the mirror are ... transitoree.