Binary

[Gary Childress]

To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.

No. You've been holding "adult humans" accountable for what we do.

[Age]

To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.

No. You've been holding "adult humans" accountable for what we do.

1. I have NOT 'held' ANY one ACCOUNT for what 'you' DO. I JUST ALLUDE TO and POINT OUT what 'you' DO, sometimes.

2. To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'they' SAY, then, OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. This IS IRREFUTABLE.

3. I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING, throughout this forum here, TO FOCUS ON 'the words' ALONE, and NOT ON 'the perceived person', "them" 'self'. This, ALSO, IS IRREFUTABLE.

4. HOW, EXACTLY, do you ENVISION that 'I' HAVE BEEN HOLDING 'you', 'adult human beings' ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'you' DO?

[Gary Childress]

To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.

No. You've been holding "adult humans" accountable for what we do.

1. I have NOT 'held' ANY one ACCOUNT for what 'you' DO. I JUST ALLUDE TO and POINT OUT what 'you' DO, sometimes.

2. To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'they' SAY, then, OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. This IS IRREFUTABLE.

3. I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING, throughout this forum here, TO FOCUS ON 'the words' ALONE, and NOT ON 'the perceived person', "them" 'self'. This, ALSO, IS IRREFUTABLE.

4. HOW, EXACTLY, do you ENVISION that 'I' HAVE BEEN HOLDING 'you', 'adult human beings' ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'you' DO?

A person is our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions. When we focus on one, we focus on all those aspects.

[Age]

No. You've been holding "adult humans" accountable for what we do.

1. I have NOT 'held' ANY one ACCOUNT for what 'you' DO. I JUST ALLUDE TO and POINT OUT what 'you' DO, sometimes.

2. To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'they' SAY, then, OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. This IS IRREFUTABLE.

3. I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING, throughout this forum here, TO FOCUS ON 'the words' ALONE, and NOT ON 'the perceived person', "them" 'self'. This, ALSO, IS IRREFUTABLE.

4. HOW, EXACTLY, do you ENVISION that 'I' HAVE BEEN HOLDING 'you', 'adult human beings' ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'you' DO?

A person is our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions.

REALLY?

HOW CAN A 'person' BE 'our mind', 'our words', 'our thoughts', and 'our actions', EXACTLY?

WHO and/or WHAT IS AN 'our', EXACTLY?

When we focus on one, we focus on all those aspects.

WHO and/or WHAT does the 'we' word here REFER TO, EXACTLY?

ALSO, WHY did 'you' ANSWER some QUESTION, which I NEVER ASKED, but FAILED TO ANSWER ANY of the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I ACTUALLY ASKED.

[Gary Childress]

1. I have NOT 'held' ANY one ACCOUNT for what 'you' DO. I JUST ALLUDE TO and POINT OUT what 'you' DO, sometimes.

2. To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'they' SAY, then, OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. This IS IRREFUTABLE.

3. I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING, throughout this forum here, TO FOCUS ON 'the words' ALONE, and NOT ON 'the perceived person', "them" 'self'. This, ALSO, IS IRREFUTABLE.

4. HOW, EXACTLY, do you ENVISION that 'I' HAVE BEEN HOLDING 'you', 'adult human beings' ACCOUNTABLE, for what 'you' DO?

A person is our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions.

REALLY?

HOW CAN A 'person' BE 'our mind', 'our words', 'our thoughts', and 'our actions', EXACTLY?

What do you mean by "how can a person be our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions? Is there some aspect of personhood that my list is missing or is there some other reason you're asking or answer you are looking for? Do you wish to say that none of those aspects are part of a person?

WHO and/or WHAT IS AN 'our', EXACTLY?

"Our" is "us" is "person" is "humanity" is "mankind" (or womankind) is __[feel free to insert your equivalent word]__.

[Age]

A person is our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions.

REALLY?

HOW CAN A 'person' BE 'our mind', 'our words', 'our thoughts', and 'our actions', EXACTLY?

What do you mean by "how can a person be our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions? Is there some aspect of personhood that my list is missing

YES.

AND THAT IS; What the word 'our' MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

or is there some other reason you're asking or answer you are looking for?

I have ASKED what I HAVE. Of which you have ANSWERED NONE.

There could be NO 'other' ANSWER I am LOOKING FOR here OTHER THAN the ONES RELATED TO the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I have ALREADY posed, and ASKED.

Do you wish to say that none of those aspects are part of a person?

Some 'things' RELATE DIRECTLY TO what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY. While 'other things' could NOT BE ANY FURTHER AWAY.

WHO and/or WHAT IS AN 'our', EXACTLY?

"Our" is "us" is "person" is "humanity" is "mankind" (or womankind) is __[feel free to insert your equivalent word]__.

So, what 'you' ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING and CLAIMING here IS:

A 'person' IS A 'person'.

See, if 'our' IS 'person', and 'person' IS 'our ...', then, ESSENTIALLY, A 'person' IS A 'person'.

Which WAS about ALL 'these persons' could WORK OUT, and FATHOM. BACK in the days when this WAS being written.

[Gary Childress]

REALLY?

HOW CAN A 'person' BE 'our mind', 'our words', 'our thoughts', and 'our actions', EXACTLY?

What do you mean by "how can a person be our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions? Is there some aspect of personhood that my list is missing

YES.

AND THAT IS; What the word 'our' MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

or is there some other reason you're asking or answer you are looking for?

I have ASKED what I HAVE. Of which you have ANSWERED NONE.

There could be NO 'other' ANSWER I am LOOKING FOR here OTHER THAN the ONES RELATED TO the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I have ALREADY posed, and ASKED.

Do you wish to say that none of those aspects are part of a person?

Some 'things' RELATE DIRECTLY TO what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY. While 'other things' could NOT BE ANY FURTHER AWAY.

WHO and/or WHAT IS AN 'our', EXACTLY?

"Our" is "us" is "person" is "humanity" is "mankind" (or womankind) is __[feel free to insert your equivalent word]__.

So, what 'you' ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING and CLAIMING here IS:

A 'person' IS A 'person'.

See, if 'our' IS 'person', and 'person' IS 'our ...', then, ESSENTIALLY, A 'person' IS A 'person'.

Which WAS about ALL 'these persons' could WORK OUT, and FATHOM. BACK in the days when this WAS being written.

Are you a person also, Age?

[Age]

What do you mean by "how can a person be our mind, our words, our thoughts, and our actions? Is there some aspect of personhood that my list is missing

YES.

AND THAT IS; What the word 'our' MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

or is there some other reason you're asking or answer you are looking for?

I have ASKED what I HAVE. Of which you have ANSWERED NONE.

There could be NO 'other' ANSWER I am LOOKING FOR here OTHER THAN the ONES RELATED TO the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I have ALREADY posed, and ASKED.

Do you wish to say that none of those aspects are part of a person?

Some 'things' RELATE DIRECTLY TO what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY. While 'other things' could NOT BE ANY FURTHER AWAY.

"Our" is "us" is "person" is "humanity" is "mankind" (or womankind) is __[feel free to insert your equivalent word]__.

So, what 'you' ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING and CLAIMING here IS:

A 'person' IS A 'person'.

See, if 'our' IS 'person', and 'person' IS 'our ...', then, ESSENTIALLY, A 'person' IS A 'person'.

Which WAS about ALL 'these persons' could WORK OUT, and FATHOM. BACK in the days when this WAS being written.

Are you a person also, Age?

LOL 'This' IS A VERY FUNNY QUESTION TO ASK 'now', especially considering that 'you' WERE JUST COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF DEFINING what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY, and SUCCESSFULLY.

[Gary Childress]

YES.

AND THAT IS; What the word 'our' MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.



I have ASKED what I HAVE. Of which you have ANSWERED NONE.

There could be NO 'other' ANSWER I am LOOKING FOR here OTHER THAN the ONES RELATED TO the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I have ALREADY posed, and ASKED.


Some 'things' RELATE DIRECTLY TO what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY. While 'other things' could NOT BE ANY FURTHER AWAY.


So, what 'you' ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING and CLAIMING here IS:

A 'person' IS A 'person'.

See, if 'our' IS 'person', and 'person' IS 'our ...', then, ESSENTIALLY, A 'person' IS A 'person'.

Which WAS about ALL 'these persons' could WORK OUT, and FATHOM. BACK in the days when this WAS being written.

Are you a person also, Age?

LOL 'This' IS A VERY FUNNY QUESTION TO ASK 'now', especially considering that 'you' WERE JUST COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF DEFINING what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY, and SUCCESSFULLY.

Are people like unicorns, we don't exist?

[Age]

Are you a person also, Age?

LOL 'This' IS A VERY FUNNY QUESTION TO ASK 'now', especially considering that 'you' WERE JUST COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF DEFINING what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY, and SUCCESSFULLY.

Are people like unicorns, we don't exist?

SEE HOW 'they' 'TRY TO' DEFLECT or IGNORE WHEN the CONTRADICTIONS, INACCURACIES, INCONSISTENCIES, or HYPOCRISY is POINTED OUT and SHOWN BACK TO 'them'.

Explaining WHO and/or WHAT 'you', persons, ARE, is what 'you', "gary childress", STARTED 'TRYING TO' do here.

'you', people, CERTAINLY DO exist. BUT, in what ACTUAL FORM 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, are STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT, and CONCLUDE.

[Gary Childress]

LOL 'This' IS A VERY FUNNY QUESTION TO ASK 'now', especially considering that 'you' WERE JUST COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF DEFINING what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY, and SUCCESSFULLY.

Are people like unicorns, we don't exist?

SEE HOW 'they' 'TRY TO' DEFLECT or IGNORE WHEN the CONTRADICTIONS, INACCURACIES, INCONSISTENCIES, or HYPOCRISY is POINTED OUT and SHOWN BACK TO 'them'.

Explaining WHO and/or WHAT 'you', persons, ARE, is what 'you', "gary childress", STARTED 'TRYING TO' do here.

'you', people, CERTAINLY DO exist. BUT, in what ACTUAL FORM 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, are STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT, and CONCLUDE.

People are eternal, Age. Would you like to join us?

[Age]

Are people like unicorns, we don't exist?

SEE HOW 'they' 'TRY TO' DEFLECT or IGNORE WHEN the CONTRADICTIONS, INACCURACIES, INCONSISTENCIES, or HYPOCRISY is POINTED OUT and SHOWN BACK TO 'them'.

Explaining WHO and/or WHAT 'you', persons, ARE, is what 'you', "gary childress", STARTED 'TRYING TO' do here.

'you', people, CERTAINLY DO exist. BUT, in what ACTUAL FORM 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, are STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT, and CONCLUDE.

People are eternal, Age. Would you like to join us?

See the ABSURDITY that some would go on with?

[Gary Childress]

SEE HOW 'they' 'TRY TO' DEFLECT or IGNORE WHEN the CONTRADICTIONS, INACCURACIES, INCONSISTENCIES, or HYPOCRISY is POINTED OUT and SHOWN BACK TO 'them'.

Explaining WHO and/or WHAT 'you', persons, ARE, is what 'you', "gary childress", STARTED 'TRYING TO' do here.

'you', people, CERTAINLY DO exist. BUT, in what ACTUAL FORM 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, are STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT, and CONCLUDE.

People are eternal, Age. Would you like to join us?

See the ABSURDITY that some would go on with?

Absurdity is all I have for you right now, Age. Would you like something different from me?

[Age]

People are eternal, Age. Would you like to join us?

See the ABSURDITY that some would go on with?

Absurdity is all I have for you right now, Age. Would you like something different from me?

NO. ONLY what 'you' GOT.