Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:00 am
I have no idea what you will find.
If you do NOT inform us of what 'it' IS that you are ASSUMING here, then we will NEVER find out.
I have, a couple of times.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:16 pm
but it's right there in previous posts for all to read. You said I said that Bill Gates was not meek. You asked me
What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?
As can be CLEARLY SEEN I asked you what I DID. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. ANY OTHER PRESUMPTION is OBVIOUSLY YOU ASSUMING.
You assumed I thought he was different from everyone.
I did NOT assume this AT ALL.
You SAID it, so I did NOT need to ASSUME it.
I have said that the word 'meek', in relation to 'inheriting the earth', is a word that is just referring to EVERY child. I added, as long as they live for long enough. I said that it is children who have the heavy, and who are the meek'.
You said, "Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates".
I noted that the one known as "bill gates" was NO different.
SO, there was NOTHING to ASSUME here. It was YOU who said that.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
I did not. Nor did I say that. I quoted above what you wrote. You wrote that. It is something you did. But maybe you don't take responsibility for past acts. I don't know.
IT was YOU who WROTE: That that does NOT include "bill gates", in relation to my remark that the work 'mee' refers to ALL children.
Either "bill gates" was a child or was NOT.
Now, if "bill gates" was a child, then that DOES include "bill gates". But, if "bill gates" was NEVER a child, then you are RIGHT, as that does NOT include "bill gates".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:16 pm
I pointed out that I did not say that. You made some assumption about what I meant, but did not say.
You have here MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD what I have SAID, and MEANT here.
If you EVER want to KNOW, then you WILL ask the right CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.
Yeah, you'll never actually respond including what you wrote. It's cool move, if people are fairly naive. OK, you can't take responsibility for your assumption. No worries.
LOL but it was NOT me who ASSUMED ANY thing here.
I even ASKED you to CLARIFY what 'it' is that you were ASSUMING I ASSUMED, but you NEVER answered this question.
So, we could talk about NOT taking responsibility here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
You MISSED the point.
Again the easy way out. Never explain. Just see if you can get the other person to say more things you can deny without explaining.
If you REALLY WANTED some 'thing' EXPLAINED,then just ask the Right CLARIFYING QUESTION. SIMPLE, REALLY.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
You are STILL MISSING the point.
Ibid.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:16 pm
As can be SEEN here now, I was CLEARLY referring to ALL children, which OBVIOUSLY DOES INCLUDE the one known as "bill gates".
Yeah, I got that, and nothing I said indicates or implies otherwise.
WHAT?
You CLEARLY SAID and WROTE:
"Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates",
I'm sorry. Maybe you're dumb not cagey. I understood what you meant. I disagree.
WHO CARES IF YOU DISAGREED?
THE point now has been you are refusing to ADMIT that you wrote "bill gates" is NOT included in, with WHO I was saying the work 'meek' refers to.
I was just POINTING OUT and SHOWING just how Wrong YOUR CLAIM here was and STILL IS.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
The words, "that sure don't include Bill Gates", MEANS, unless of course I am MISTAKEN, that 'that' does NOT include the one known as "bill gates". So, if I am MISTAKEN, then will you correct this?
Obviously, duh. I think stupidity is becoming the more likely cause of your inability to communicate. I should have been more charitable. Well, on second thought I am not sure which is more charitable, thinking you are stupid or thinking
you are being intentionally evasive and dishonest.
And here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of an ATTEMPT at DECEPTION and Dishonesty, in the highest degree, while at the same time 'trying to' RIDICULE and DISCREDIT the "other" AS WELL.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
Ah okay. It sounds like you NEED "others" to write in VERY SPECIFIC ways BEFORE you can FULLY UNDERSTAND what is being SAID and MEANT.
Yeah, I'm sure other people, and no small number, have not reacted similarly to your shit.
So, do the words, 'Those, of the 'meek', who are still alive into adult, maturity, or responsible age, shall inherit the earth', better communication, for you?
No, moron. I understood that is what you meant. On the other hand your explanation does not fit the Bible well at all.
1. IF you DID UNDERSTAND this PREVIOUSLY, then WHY write, "but that sure does NOT include Bill Gates"?
2. WHY, EXACTLY, does my explanation NOT "fit the Bible well AT ALL"?
3. WHAT EXPLANATION DOES "fit the Bible WELL"?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
I WILL ADDRESS 'it' now then.
Oh, joy.
ALL 'children'' are born WITH and HAVE those 'good qualities'. Just about EVERY 'child' has LOSTjuat about EVERY one of those 'good qualities', by the time they reach 'adulthood'.
Have I ADDRESSED 'that part' enough, for you this time?
If no, then just let me know. I will address 'it' further for you.
I actually responded earlier to you trying on that explanation. I asked about it.
You made the CLAIM that I had NOT addressed 'it', BUT now you CLAIM that I had ALREADY responded to 'it'. So, which one is it?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 amThat doesn't however address my objection. You seem to be one of those people who thinks restating or rewording their original position is an actual response to criticism of that position.
You can criticize ANY thing for as long as you like, but that does NOT mean that you are right AT ALL.
In fact you have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL YET that ACTUALLY 'critiques' ABSOLUTELY ANY thing I have said here.
In fact you have SHOWN to say some thing that was OBVIOUSLY NOT true AT ALL.
Now, you want to make a CLAIM here that you have made a criticism to my position. Do you have the courage to SAY and WRITE "again" that 'critiscism'?
If you do, then I WILL RESPOND to 'it'. But if you do NOT, then this SAYS and REVEALS MORE about 'you'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
And here lays the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between children and adults. Children "ARE" those "things". Adults ARE NOT.
Oh, yeah, right, all children are peacemakers. Well, you've never been a teacher or parent, perhaps you live in a cave.
AND just like a TYPICAL ADULT you have MADE an ASSUMPTION and have JUMPED to a CONCLUSION BEFORE you even BEGAN to seek ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
I am sorry. I assumed, incorrectly that you had experience of the world. You are an experience-virgin. And I have reacted harshly to the sloppily worded and generally implicit idealism of yours. I should be expressing empathy. Given your alck of experience you are doing sort of OK here.
And 'you', adults', are SO EASY to MANIPULATE.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
Sounds like 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written STILL could NOT AGREE ON what is ACTUALLY Right, or good, and what is ACTUALLY Wrong, or bad, in Life, correct?
They Couldn't then and they can't now.
WHEN was 'then', and WHEN is 'now'?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am But again, you'd know about this stuff if you had experience of the world. You're doing the best you can.
But 'you', human beings, once did KNOW what was Right and good in Life. 'you' have just LOST 'your way', as some might say
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
Do ' you' STILL NEED suggestions of what IS Right and Wrong, in Life?
Sure, I am still learning. Loved ones can make me aware of things, others also. I am still developing.
Okay.
When you say, "loved ones", who are you referring to, EXACTLY?
What is the reason 'you' only love and like SOME, and NOT ALL?
And as usual, instead of responding to the point made, you give me more hoops to go through.
The so-called "point" you made was just ANOTHER ABSURD and Wrong ASSUMPTION, anyway. So, it was just ANOTHER 'thing' NOT WORTH responding to.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
I mean, you could say, Oh, I am past all that Iwannaplato. You still need help. YOu are one of them. Or
that's not what I meant, of course we all learn but in the foundation you know....
or any other response that actually shows you understood what I mean and that it led you to concede something or did not lead to that becuase of X. But what you do, because you instinctively feel it I would guess, is avoid doing those kinds of things.
LOL
I have NOT heard such STUPID and IDIOTIC EXPECTATIONS for a while now.
ONCE AGAIN, YOUR "points" are ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, Wrong, or just plain False, so NOT worth responding to.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
If you can get the other person to write more, you can distract them again and again by never actually dealing with their responses to you, but you keep responding to and generally misinterpreting what they say.
Talk about PROJECTION.
I AM THE ONLY ONE here who has offered up an EXPLANATION of WHOnthe 'meek' refers to, in relation to the topic title.
Now, IF ANY one has an issue or problem with that EXPLANATION, then continue on.
Who it IS who has been MISINTERPRETING, DISTRACTING, and NOT ACTUALLY dealing with that response of mine can be CLEARLY SEEN here
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
ONCE AGAIN, ALL 'children' HAVE the 'qualities' of those who SHALL inherit the earth.
It might hold if they did. But they don't you have an idealized and quite incorrect view of children.
And you have a VERY NARROWED and SHORT SIGHTED view of things here. Which explains WHY you keep MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING here. Which, by the way, is just PLAIN OBVIOUS as well as being IRREFUTABLE.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 amChildren are often not merciful and further this is especially true of a subset of children, who can be intentionally cruel. Nor are they all, remotely peacemaker.
MORE PROOF of Wrong ASSUMING and CONCLUDING, based upon NEVER FIRST CLARIFYING, in the beginning, and a VERY SHORT SIGHTED and NARROWED WAY of LOOKING AT and SEEING things.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 amAnd even a fairly dumb person can see that the last part of Jesus' speech is not directed at children.
WHY NOT?
And what has not having the ability to speak got to do with ANY of this here?
WHO is the last part of "jesus's" directed at, EXACTLY?
YOUR REFUSAL to answer and CLARIFY proves just how LITTLE you stand behind YOUR CLAIMS here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am I'd go into a deeper discussion with you about the other points and how they do not fit you model, but...well...my sense of you mentioned already leads to me doubting that would lead anywhere.
The REAL REASON you do NOT go into FURTHER DISCUSSION with me is because you are AFRAID I WILL PROVE you Wrong AGAIN.
You ALSO have NO other ACTUAL points in regards to how they do NOT fit my model ANYWAY
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am You don't really respond. You insult, express great surprise, and implicitly insult and ask a lot of questions instead of actually dealing with responses. Perhaps you need the comfort.
Perhaps you could STOP MAKING these Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING to these Wrong CONCLUSIONS. But then again maybe you can NOT. We will just have to WAIT and SEE.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:48 am
But Age, I now understand why people react to you the way they do. You are a terrible interlocutor. I mean, it's trash waste of time shit. I would guess you will ignore this, but when you get this feedback from enough people, perhaps you will learn. I wish you luck but I won't be reading anything you write any more.
BECAUSE you are WEAK, and can NOT back up and support your PREVIOUS CLAIMS.
You just do NOT like the Fact that I PROVED YOUR first CLAIM Wrong and False and that you were NOT able to refute MY CLAIM here.
So, RUN AWAY, like you WANT TO.