So, are you CLAIMING that you can KNOW the internal feelings and emotions of "others" just by the printed words that are placed in front of you on a screen?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am Age: Everyone who I have seen engage you seems to get annoyed with you.
If yes, then could you EVER be WRONG?
Considering the FACT that you could NOT tell when one is 'joking' from 'being serious', then being able to KNOW the emotions within "another" seems far more unlikely, and especially when CLARIFICATION is NOT made FIRST.
Granted that it is POSSIBLE to KNOW the 'thoughts' AND 'emotions' within another human body, but the ACCURACY of this KNOWING is to be questioned, which can only be Truly obtained, and thus KNOWN, through CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and Truly OPEN and Honest ANSWERS.
And let us NOT FORGET this conversation started by you making the CLAIM: "Right now all you are is annoying to ALMOST everyone."
Thus, the, serious, CLARIFYING QUESTION: 'And, who am I NOT "annoying"?', which I posed to you.
All I have to go on here are the VERY WORDS that 'you', people, SAY and USE. Which, reminds me, and by the way, here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of just how many times the peoples of the days when this was being written CONTRADICTED "themselves". One time this person says that ALL I am is "annoying" to ALMOST everyone, and next time they say that EVERY one who they have seen me engage with seem to get annoyed with me. And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is the reason WHY this one thought that I was "only joking" before. The reason WHY they thought this is because they did NOT ACTUALLY mean 'ALMOST everyone' the first time, then ACTUALLY ASSUMED, and more than likely BELIEVED that absolutely EVERY one who they had seen me engage with got annoyed with me. Thus, WHY they thought it funny that I would ask, 'Who am I NOT "annoying"?'.
I will, AGAIN, suggest that if you did NOT mean one 'thing', like for example, "ALMOST everyone" but ACTUALLY MEANT "EVERY one", then you say what you ACTUALLY MEAN, instead.
Firstly, the word 'that' here could refer to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am Does that seem normal to you or the way things should be or does that tell you that you need to change?
Secondly, what you say 'seems', to you, is VERY NORMAL, to me. This is BECAUSE what ANY thing 'seems' LIKE, to them, is based solely upon ALL of their OWN Past Experiences, of which NO human being has had ANY REAL CONTROL OF or OVER.
Thirdly, is there a way things SHOULD BE, to you? If yes, then what is THAT WAY?
Fourthly, what 'seems' LIKE, to you, is NOT necessarily what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING AT ALL.
Fifthly, getting people who are respondents here, in this forum, in the days of when this is being written, 'annoyed' is PART OF THE PLAN. I do this so that I can SHOW and PROVE just how SIMPLE and EASY it is to MANIPULATE and CONTROL 'you', human beings, so that 'you' WILL respond in CERTAIN WAYS, which 'you' think or BELIEVE is ALL of your OWN DOING, in order that I will have the NECESSARY PROOF, which WILL back up and support my CLAIMS about HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, in conjunction WITH and AGAINST each other.
Although gathering MORE PROOF now is NOT REALLY NEEDED AT ALL, doing so is just part and parcel of what is OCCURRING in my grasping MORE and ANEW knowledge in regards to how to communicate with 'you', human beings, BETTER.
I KNOW what YOUR INTENTION WAS. But I was just REPLYING to thee ACTUAL WORDS that you ACTUALLY USED.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am The point of my post to which you replied: "And, who am I NOT "annoying"?" was to give advice to just give it a rest and maybe try to post something relevant to the OP instead.
I now suggest that IF you REALLY just want to make A POINT, then you just SAY and WRITE what THE POINT IS, ONLY.
Oh, and by the way, do you NOT find it HYPOCRITICAL AT ALL to "give advice" to do some 'thing' like, "to try to post something relevant to the opening post instead", WHEN you are NOT even doing 'that' "yourself"?
Also, if you were to LOOK BACK at the ACTUAL opening post or to even the title of this thread, then you can CLEARLY SEE that posting ANY thing relevant to the opening post or thread title would just be ABSURDITY in and of itself, just like the opening post and thread title themselves ARE.
Further to this, NO one has said ANY in regards to the thread title nor to the opening post for quite some pages now, INCLUDING YOU.
I do NOT think that just because I have NOT been posting relevant things to the opening post of this thread, for quite a while now, is the very reason WHY I, seem to be, "annoying" to EVERY one, from your perspective.
I think you WILL FIND that that reason WHY IF, and WHEN, I am "annoying" to "others" it WILL BE for ANOTHER reason.
'Heaven forbid' that you would 'give' advice but not even 'take' that SAME advice "yourself".Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am But heaven forbid you should take advice from someone who is giving you some sane advice.
Do you write for 'an audience'?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:16 am Instead, you're too busy writing about, "in the days when this was written," referring to something that was written only minutes ago.
If yes, then who is the 'audience' you are writing for?
And could it be a POSSIBILITY that who "your" 'audience' is DIFFERENT than who 'my' 'audience' is?
if no, then WHY NOT?