If you can't prove it, then it's just your belief, not an established fact (neither for us and nor for future generations).Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:41 pm
I have NOT even begun to PROVE this, ALREADY ESTABLISHED FACT, to ANY one. So, there would, literally, be NO one who thinks I have proven that ANY one who BELIEVES that there is 'absolutely NO way of channeling God/Universe/Spirit' is just PLAIN OLD Wrong and Incorrect.
Also, and by the way, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY one is just channeling thee God/Universe/Spirit anyway, even if they are completely AND utterly UNAWARE of this FACT, like 'you' are "atla".
A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
If you say so.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:01 pmIf you can't prove it, then it's just your belief, not an established fact (neither for us and nor for future generations).Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:41 pm
I have NOT even begun to PROVE this, ALREADY ESTABLISHED FACT, to ANY one. So, there would, literally, be NO one who thinks I have proven that ANY one who BELIEVES that there is 'absolutely NO way of channeling God/Universe/Spirit' is just PLAIN OLD Wrong and Incorrect.
Also, and by the way, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY one is just channeling thee God/Universe/Spirit anyway, even if they are completely AND utterly UNAWARE of this FACT, like 'you' are "atla".
But we will just have to WAIT and SEE if I can prove 'it' or NOT.
Re: A World Without Men?
Wrong, either you the human prove it now, or you are a psychotic idiot.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:19 pmIf you say so.Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:01 pmIf you can't prove it, then it's just your belief, not an established fact (neither for us and nor for future generations).Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 12:41 pm
I have NOT even begun to PROVE this, ALREADY ESTABLISHED FACT, to ANY one. So, there would, literally, be NO one who thinks I have proven that ANY one who BELIEVES that there is 'absolutely NO way of channeling God/Universe/Spirit' is just PLAIN OLD Wrong and Incorrect.
Also, and by the way, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY one is just channeling thee God/Universe/Spirit anyway, even if they are completely AND utterly UNAWARE of this FACT, like 'you' are "atla".
But we will just have to WAIT and SEE if I can prove 'it' or NOT.
-
- Posts: 8325
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: A World Without Men?
God, I hate playing the asshole. You're OK, Age. I'm the one who needs to get help. I'm going insane over this woman I'm in love with. It just makes me angry at everything and everyone that no woman has ever returned my affection. Well, one did but she returned everyone else's affection too.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:48 amYet here we are with people ALREADY going through nearly five years of my writings to just repeat some of them AGAIN.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 amYou're just weird, Age. You're not speaking to future generations. No one is going to sift through a Googleplex of typing produced on the Internet by billions of users even 10 years from now (let alone more than that) to witness anything you're saying (if anything you say was even worthwhile to begin with).Okay, if you say and BELIEVE SO, then what you say here MUST BE absolutely and irrefutably TRUE, correct?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am No one is going to know who you are, care who you are or pay any attention.
Okay.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am You're typing into a black hole for all it matters right now. You're just an ordinary person with some psychological issues chatting on the Internet. Get help.
Re: A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
Even your own mother?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:30 pmGod, I hate playing the asshole. You're OK, Age. I'm the one who needs to get help. I'm going insane over this woman I'm in love with. It just makes me angry at everything and everyone that no woman has ever returned my affection.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:48 amYet here we are with people ALREADY going through nearly five years of my writings to just repeat some of them AGAIN.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am
You're just weird, Age. You're not speaking to future generations. No one is going to sift through a Googleplex of typing produced on the Internet by billions of users even 10 years from now (let alone more than that) to witness anything you're saying (if anything you say was even worthwhile to begin with).Okay, if you say and BELIEVE SO, then what you say here MUST BE absolutely and irrefutably TRUE, correct?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am No one is going to know who you are, care who you are or pay any attention.
Okay.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am You're typing into a black hole for all it matters right now. You're just an ordinary person with some psychological issues chatting on the Internet. Get help.
Who is "she"?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:30 pm Well, one did but she returned everyone else's affection too.
Re: A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
i wouldn't without proof, and future generations won't trust you either if you can't provide proofAge wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:44 pmBut WHY would you trust a 'psychotic IDIOT'?
Re: A World Without Men?
But you just said, "we'll have to trust them" [those that can not prove 'right now'], and, "you're just one more".
And now you say you would NOT trust them, nor me, without proof. Which is ONCE AGAIN more Truly CONTRADICTORY CLAIMS of yours "atla".
But I can and WILL as I am ALREADY GAINING the PROOF, right here now.
Re: A World Without Men?
No, it means you're also autistic and interpreted "we'll have to trust them" the wrong way, even though it was in very simple English. i said that they foolishly expect to be trusted without proof.
This is what age the human believes, but age is probably wrong.But I can and WILL as I am ALREADY GAINING the PROOF, right here now.
Re: A World Without Men?
Do you believe that should you TELL and EXPLAIN to me how to find "find thee ACTUAL Truth" by and for myself, I will find the same ACTUAL Truth that you already know?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 2:59 amI am NOT here to just TELL or EXPLAIN, to you, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. I am here to TELL and EXPLAIN, to you, HOW you can find thee ACTUAL Truth by, and for, "yourself". This is just what I am in the process of learning how to communicate better with 'you', human beings.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6335
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: A World Without Men?
Okay Ken, some of your stupidity must be play acting right? I posted the exact thing you asked for as one post, and then referenced it in the bext post with advice to scroll up to the post above. This Shit can't be beyond you.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:06 amBut you will NOT provide a link or an EXACT POSITION.
I could say the answers to ALL of your clarifying questions is above. Just scroll up. But does that REALLY help ANY one, correct?
So THE EXACT POSITION is "two posts above this one" because you happened to have written a reply to somebody else between my two posts, that's where I answered your question in very precise and true terms.
If you need a link, may I point you to the little blue up arrows besides our names in these things. Those are the links to the places that the quotes come from.
I have been requesting clarification on teh simple matter of whether you are predicting that persons in the yeart 2100 will be visiting this forum to learn about your grand wisdom. Or will it be persons in the year 3500 who do so? That is not at all clear.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:06 amWell what can be CLEARLY SEEN, in the original text and context that it was written, now that you have provided it, is the ACTUAL CLARITY that you are so DESPERATELY SEEKING and WANTING from me.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:32 amMate, I have posted your future generations text about 20 times in big colourful letters. And.... you have clarified nothing. So, are you about to clarify anything....?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:21 am
I REALLY WISH you would STOP making up ASSUMPTIONS, which I then have to spend absolutely UNNECESSARY time CORRECTING.
I have NEVER " pretended that I do NOT know about 'it' ". I just asked you to PROVIDE the ACTUAL WORDS that I have used. Was that REALLY that hard to do?
Do you REMEMBER EVERY word that you have written, in the past?
I am looking for clarity over whether you are issuing the sort of god-chanelling vision FROM the future as Atla suspects, or are just telling us what you BELIEVE will be the case in the future. There is no clarification to be had from you in this matter.
It's not natural for me to spend this much time on your words Ken, you aren't interesting so it bores me to bother doing this stuff. And you aren't important, so it doesn't need doing. I'm doing this only because you are an obnoxious spam monkey who keeps taking over threads about other subjects to talk about himself. Talk of what I 'desperately need' or 'want' from you is misplaced, I would be happy for there to be a little bit less of you, because what there is, is textureless and lacks variety. You are human spinach, and I would like a smaller portion please.
Yeah, well you, Age/Ken are the person who often tells us that he has answered all clarifying questions put to him, but not received answers for those he has asked. So if you have been intending that as an impossible riddle, that's a bit of a dick move Ken.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:06 amIt is NOT about, and NEVER was, about "understanding ANY 'me', referred to ANY name like "ken" nor "age".FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:32 am.... no. Still clarifying nothing at all.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:21 am Considering that you have provided my ACTUAL WORDS, we now have some thing to LOOK AT and SEE, and what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that they were written nearly five years ago. So, did you REALLY expect me to KNOW about them, WORD FOR WORD?
Also, what LOOKS LIKE, to you, is NOT necessarily what WAS MEANT, by me. Because some thing LOOKS LIKE a 'belief', TO YOU, this does NOT mean that 'it' is a 'belief'. Is this FINALLY CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, completely?
Now, let us LOOK AT what I wrote, back then.
Now, you want, or are EXPECTING, me to tell you what I was predicting, and for whom, correct?
Well the answer to BOTH of those questions can be CLEARLY SEEN in that 'full unabridged text from my original claim', which you have thankfully provided here for us to LOOK AT and SEE.
And, I must say this is going even BETTER than I expected. So, thank you "flashdangerpants", for bringing this to the forefront, AGAIN.
Oh, and by the way, you made the claim here: Here, again, is the full unabridged text from your original claim.
So, will you now provide a link to where, exactly, this 'full unabridged text' was presented, previously, as well?
WHEN do these future generations fully understand you Ken?
We know the answer to "who am I". You have your own, unecessary, Kenglish version of that in a language none of us speaks. And you have an unshakeable belief that future generations will understand that question in Kenglish rather than English.
But we remain no closer to an explanation of how you know that future generations will adopt this quite inexplicable need for "I" to refer to the universe when some new word would be a more sane way to get there. You apparently have some reason for using "Theee" instead of 'the'', why not Iiii instead of 'I'?
How do you know future generations wil adopt your particular choice of language conventions?
Yeah, you're a bit too evasive and bullshitty to be accusing me of dishonesty if I am to be completely honest with you Ken.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:06 am When future generations will FULLY UNDERSTOOD is when they learn how to become Truly Honest and Truly OPEN, like 'you' ALL once were.
Explaining this to a species, and a generation, who are Truly CLOSED and Truly Dishonest, just takes some time. But, as I keep REMINDING you, there is NO RUSH. As ALL works out PERFECTLY, ANYWAY.
And right now, what we have here is more evasion. The useful answer to "when will X happen?" is not "it will happen when it happens".
What is at question here is the nature of your prophecy. If it is not a matter of your personal belief, what is it?
No, how do you actually know Ken? Drop the mysticism act and tell us the truth.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: A World Without Men?
If that's the case then you must be doing something wrong. I doubt if you are 'in love' with this person. You are infatuated with her. There's a big difference. There's no point in getting angry at everyone else. What's wrong with being on your own anyway? Get a dog.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:30 pmGod, I hate playing the asshole. You're OK, Age. I'm the one who needs to get help. I'm going insane over this woman I'm in love with. It just makes me angry at everything and everyone that no woman has ever returned my affection. Well, one did but she returned everyone else's affection too.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:48 amYet here we are with people ALREADY going through nearly five years of my writings to just repeat some of them AGAIN.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am
You're just weird, Age. You're not speaking to future generations. No one is going to sift through a Googleplex of typing produced on the Internet by billions of users even 10 years from now (let alone more than that) to witness anything you're saying (if anything you say was even worthwhile to begin with).Okay, if you say and BELIEVE SO, then what you say here MUST BE absolutely and irrefutably TRUE, correct?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am No one is going to know who you are, care who you are or pay any attention.
Okay.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:59 am You're typing into a black hole for all it matters right now. You're just an ordinary person with some psychological issues chatting on the Internet. Get help.
-
- Posts: 8325
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: A World Without Men?
I take it you've never had strong romantic feelings for someone? I guess we're just different in the way we perceive the world. I don't see anything terribly wrong with infatuation in and of itself. It can lead to deeper feelings. For those who are lucky to have it returned it could be a very rewarding experience.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:50 pmIf that's the case then you must be doing something wrong. I doubt if you are 'in love' with this person. You are infatuated with her. There's a big difference. There's no point in getting angry at everyone else. What's wrong with being on your own anyway? Get a dog.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 1:30 pmGod, I hate playing the asshole. You're OK, Age. I'm the one who needs to get help. I'm going insane over this woman I'm in love with. It just makes me angry at everything and everyone that no woman has ever returned my affection. Well, one did but she returned everyone else's affection too.