GOD NEVER BECOMES FULLY IGNORANT

[Gary Childress]

Is the name of your book going to be, "how people react when someone going by the screen name "Age" acts like an asshole toward them"?

Or is your book going to be a deep study in the "true" nature of those who study philosophy.

I know it's a long title. On second thought, maybe you should include that disclaimer somewhere at the beginning of the groundbreaking work you are about to reveal to your future readers?

[rootseeker]

OK. So your statement "only people could be omniscient and omnipotent" is incorrect. Is that correct? Or did you say something that you did not have the knowledge to proclaim?

It was written incorrectly, or at least too vaguely. The default implication is absolute omniscience and omnipotence. However, I didn't specify I was referring to both absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence for that statement. In a human-created virtual universe, the human creator has a form of omniscience and omnipotence.

So is it the case that you believe "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't involve knowing everything or being able do everything and anything? Or what are you calling "omniscience" or "omnipotence"? Are you perhaps suggesting that God is little more than the idolizing or mythologizing of rulers and powerful people? Would you clarify more on your assertions?

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God. God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe. And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience. These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God. Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds. This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God. These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

[Gary Childress]

It was written incorrectly, or at least too vaguely. The default implication is absolute omniscience and omnipotence. However, I didn't specify I was referring to both absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence for that statement. In a human-created virtual universe, the human creator has a form of omniscience and omnipotence.

So is it the case that you believe "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't involve knowing everything or being able do everything and anything? Or what are you calling "omniscience" or "omnipotence"? Are you perhaps suggesting that God is little more than the idolizing or mythologizing of rulers and powerful people? Would you clarify more on your assertions?

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God. God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe. And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience. These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God. Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds. This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God. These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

Does God exist? Is God the only omnipotent and omniscient one or are people also?

[Age]

Given that you've written over 10,000 posts, it occurred to me you might have written a book about philosophy topics.

I was in the process of writing a book but did not want ANY 'thing' in it to be Inaccurate, I was also finding just how simply and easily relatively 'new messages or ideas' can be all to quickly misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, so so I decided to come to a philosophy forum, first, to have my views gauged, and critiqued. See, I thought 'philosophy' and "philosophers" were about continually looking for, finding, and coming to answers, and solutions, which could NOT be refuted, through logically reasoned Truly OPEN and Honest discussions. Although, to me, 'this' STILL IS what 'philosophy' IS and what True "philosophers" DO, I quickly FOUND that what my view is here IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from "others" views about 'philosophy', and what "philosophers" do.

I very quickly discovered if one can CHANGE 'the views' of a so-called "philosopher", then that one can CHANGE 'the views' of absolutely ANY one "else". So, I WAIT TO SEE if 'the view' of one in this forum CAN be CHANGED, and if so, then I WILL USE 'that process' in the book that I am yet to start writing again.

Or, that there are books or articles that describe your philosophical beliefs.

I have only One belief. The term or phrase 'philosophical belief/s' is an oxymoron to me.

There are, however, countless books and articles, which all contain 'ideas', 'views', and 'conclusions' in them that describe directly 'my views', from what I come, to observe.

But getting people to LOOK and SEE PAST their OWN 'perspectives' of those same 'things', so that 'they' CAN LOOK and SEE WHERE, EXACTLY, I AM, literally, COMING FROM is actually talking longer than I had first expected.

Thus, ANOTHER example of WHY it is ALWAYS BETTER TO NEVER ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', FIRST.

Now, if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED and CURIOS as to coming to learn and understand, EXACTLY, HOW and WHAT IN books and articles FIT IN PERFECTLY with 'my views', and WHY some of 'my views' ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM 'the views' "others" HAVE on the EXACT SAME 'wording' in books and articles, then I am MORE than WILLING TO SHARE.

If one is WAITING FOR me to START 'this' here, then let us look AT the first words in the bible, 'In the beginning'. Now, to a great number of people, these words are IMPLIED to mean or refer to, some beginning or start of the WHOLE Universe, Itself, and this view, or belief, had become so strong among that even so-called "scientists" then "themselves" started 'theorizing' and 'assuming' that the Universe, Itself, ALSO had a start or beginning, and so 'these people', then started MAKING UP 'stories' ABOUT HOW the Universe ACTUALLY BEGUN. To which the 'stories' became SO STRONG that some started BELIEVING that the Universe MUST OF BEGUN, and then following on from these STRONGLY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS these "scientists" started 'seeing' 'evidence' IN some of the 'observations' they were making.

Just like how some people started ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that the earth is flat, and/or the earth is at the center of the Universe. FROM those ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS they then STARTED 'seeing' what they WERE ASSUMING and BELIEVING. They would ALSO CLAIM that they HAD 'evidence' FROM the 'observations' that they were making, and taking.

The words, 'In the beginning', to me anyway, have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with some so-called 'start' NOR 'beginning' of the WHOLE Universe FROM SOME 'thing' OTHER NOR OUTSIDE OF the Universe, Itself.

The words, 'In the beginning', just refers to 'what IS HAPPENING NOW' IS ALWAYS creating or causing what APPEARS to OCCUR 'next', but what IS, ESSENTIALLY, just the CONTINUAL 'NOW'.

And 'now', if ANY one would like to learn, understand, and KNOW what OTHER words MEAN, or REFER TO, to me, which, by the way, APPEARS TO FIT INTO One Truly CRYSTAL CLEAR Picture of ALL-THERE-IS, but which I have YET TO get VERIFIED, then by all means let 'us' PROCEED.

But if ANY one wants to TELL me their views', and wants to EXPRESS 'those views' as being True, Right, or Correct, then I will just ASK, FIRST, 'Can you guarantee that 'those views' are ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, or Correct?

And, if NOT, then WHY even HOLD ONTO 'them' and BOTHER WITH 'them'?

1. Why are you using the word, "people", Age?

BECAUSE I AM TALKING ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO 'those THINGS'.

2. What do you mean by the word, "people"?

The 'thoughts and emotions' WITHIN two or more human bodies.

[Age]

@Age:

1. What is the purpose of your book?

Ultimately to show how the Truly peaceful harmonious, stress-free, and pollution-free world WILL come about.

2. What would you like your book to accomplish?

The SAME.

3. Or put another way, why are you writing your book?

For the reason I gave in 'your' first, and second, question here.

[Age]

Oh. And by the way, you do NOT have my permission to include my name or anything I've written on this forum in your book.

Okay. BUT I WILL USE what I WANT, WHEN I WANT.

Oh, and furthermore, 'you' have ALREADY SAID, and WRITTEN, here ALL that I WANT and WILL USE.

However, if you wish to violate my copy rights, then I won't bother to do anything about it.

'you' could NOT ANYWAY.

Just know that if you do so, you have violated my rights.

LOL And WHO and/or WHAT gave 'you' 'those, so-called, rights'?

AND, what 'rights' are 'they', EXACTLY, anyway?

[Age]

Is the name of your book going to be, "how people react when someone going by the screen name "Age" acts like an asshole toward them"?

Probably NOT. BUT, I WILL think about 'it'.

Or is your book going to be a deep study in the "true" nature of those who study philosophy.

What IS 'philosophy', to 'you', EXACTLY, "gary childress", which could even be 'studied'?

I know it's a long title.

WOW, and HOW do 'you' KNOW 'this', EXACTLY?

On second thought, maybe you should include that disclaimer somewhere at the beginning of the groundbreaking work you are about to reveal to your future readers?

[Gary Childress]

@Age:

1. What is the purpose of your book?

Ultimately to show how the Truly peaceful harmonious, stress-free, and pollution-free world WILL come about.

2. What would you like your book to accomplish?

The SAME.

3. Or put another way, why are you writing your book?

For the reason I gave in 'your' first, and second, question here.

Hopefully, your book will win you a Nobel prize before pollution, stress, and lack of "harmoniousness" destroy the world, Age.

Would you like to rethink the statement you made below or would you like me to demonstrate where and why your statement is incorrect or wrong?

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

[Age]

It was written incorrectly, or at least too vaguely. The default implication is absolute omniscience and omnipotence. However, I didn't specify I was referring to both absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence for that statement. In a human-created virtual universe, the human creator has a form of omniscience and omnipotence.

So is it the case that you believe "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't involve knowing everything or being able do everything and anything? Or what are you calling "omniscience" or "omnipotence"? Are you perhaps suggesting that God is little more than the idolizing or mythologizing of rulers and powerful people? Would you clarify more on your assertions?

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God.

If the word 'our' here is referring to 'human beings' or ANY such 'thing' or 'things', which are A PART OF 'the Universe, Itself, then by SAYING, 'our universe' the way 'you' do, 'this' could be implied as MEANING that who and/or what ever the 'our' word is referring to ACTUALLY 'owns' or 'creates' 'that universe'.

God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe.

But there are NO 'layers' of the Universe, Itself.

There are, however, DIFFERENT 'worlds', depending on HOW 'you', human beings, BEHAVE, or MISBEHAVE. For example, there IS the 'greedy, selfish, warn-torn, stressful, pollution-riddled, and disharmony world', that 'you', human beings, lived in, when this was being written. THEN, there IS the 'Truly peaceful, harmonious, stress-less, pollution-less, and happy world', which IS the 'world' that comes AFTER 'the current', to 'you', posters, here 'world' is DEAD and LONG GONE.

That is; AFTER that 'life' 'you' ARE living IN and WITH is DEAD and GONE the 'new' and MUCH BETTER 'life' CAN, and DID, BEGIN.

And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

BUT ONLY 'worlds', and/or 'life's, have different so-called 'layers'.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience.

Will you give a 'cap', or definition, of 'paradox', which 'you' HAVE and ARE USING here?

These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God.

But 'paradoxes' are just 'things' that 'you', human beings, create and make.

Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds.

BUT the words 'omnipotence' and 'omniscience', by themselves, ARE in relation TO ALL, and NOT SOME, 'worlds'.

This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

BUT WHY even BEGIN TO TWIST and DISTORT 'that' what IS ACTUALLY ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLY True, to start with?

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God.

NO there can NOT be.

These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

[Age]

So is it the case that you believe "omniscience" and "omnipotence" don't involve knowing everything or being able do everything and anything? Or what are you calling "omniscience" or "omnipotence"? Are you perhaps suggesting that God is little more than the idolizing or mythologizing of rulers and powerful people? Would you clarify more on your assertions?

God is the intelligent designer of our universe, and our universe is like the imagination of God. God remains the one who is the ultimate (root) creator even when there might be sub-layers of the universe. And God also retains ultimate control over the delegated layers.

Here is a quick re-cap of omniscience and omnipotence as described: Omnipotence is being all-powerful, while omniscience is being all-knowing. Like many other divine characteristics, these are riddled with paradoxes, of which this very thread focuses on one such paradox of the power to ignore conflicting with omniscience. These paradoxes are the theoretical limits of God. Furthermore, omnipotence and omniscience can be relative in that in virtual, imaginary, or dream worlds as intangible worlds of a person can have omnipotence and omniscience relative to those worlds, even when God has higher control than the human does over those worlds. This could be considered a delegation of a combination of power or knowledge. Furthermore intangible worlds could be considered in a sense a universe of their own as having an energy system with a different set of physical laws as our own. When looking at intangible worlds that way, the Universe is then divided into multiple universes as universal layers.

It may be possible that there are fully and truly disconnected realms of existence, disconnected from everything including God. These realms would have to be entirely beyond our observable universe, because if not they would be connected. In that case God is relatively rather than absolutely omniscient and omnipotent.

Does God exist?

YES.

Is God the only omnipotent and omniscient one or are people also?

WHEN, and IF, 'you' ALSO DISCOVER and/or KNOW what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS here, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE the HUMOR here, AS WELL.

Do 'you' REALLY WONDER if some 'people' could be 'omnipotent' and/or 'omniscient' "gary childress"?

[Gary Childress]

Would you like to rethink the statement you made below or would you like me to demonstrate where and why your statement is incorrect or wrong?

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

[Age]

@Age:

1. What is the purpose of your book?

Ultimately to show how the Truly peaceful harmonious, stress-free, and pollution-free world WILL come about.

2. What would you like your book to accomplish?

The SAME.

3. Or put another way, why are you writing your book?

For the reason I gave in 'your' first, and second, question here.

Hopefully, your book will win you a Nobel prize before pollution, stress, and lack of "harmoniousness" destroy the world, Age.

Here is ANOTHER example of ANOTHER VERY INDOCTRINATED NARROWED and/or CLOSED individual.

I WILL RE-REPEAT, ONCE AGAIN. Absolutely NOTHING I SAY NOR DO is for absolutely ANY so-called 'prize', 'money', NOR even 'recognition'.

Would you like to rethink the statement you made below or would you like me to demonstrate where and why your statement is incorrect or wrong?

As I HAVE BEEN CONTINUALLY STATING, I SERIOUSLY WANT WHERE absolutely ANY 'thing' I SAY, WRITE, and/or CLAIM here in this forum, which is perceived to be false, incorrect, or wrong TO BE POINTED OUT, SHOWN, AND HIGHLIGHTED, and then I ALSO SERIOUSLY and REALLY ALL of the reasons WHY, REVEALED AS WELL, and even MORE IMPORTANTLY SO.

Is 'this' CLEAR ENOUGH?

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

I, SERIOUSLY, Truly WANT 'you' to demonstrate where and why my statement is incorrect or wrong, PLEASE.

Now that I have RE-READ my so-called 'statement', besides a word or two which I forgot to include, then there is NOTHING ELSE that I would WANT TO CHANGE here. So, PLEASE FEEL FREE to POINT OUT ALL OF the WHERE'S and ALL of the WHY'S 'my statement' IS incorrect and/or wrong.

[Age]

Would you like to rethink the statement you made below or would you like me to demonstrate where and why your statement is incorrect or wrong?

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY. The reason for 'this perspective' is because, to me, a 'person' can NOT be any part of the visible human body because if, for example, there was an arm or a leg missing from a 'human body' then this would make 'that person' be 'less than' "another person" is, which, OBVIOUSLY, could NEVER be True. And, when the word 'person' is meaning or referring to the invisible 'being' part, then NO 'person' is 'less than' NOR 'more than' ANY "other". ALL 'people' or 'persons' ARE JUST DIFFERENT, ONLY. NO 'person' is BETTER than ANY one "else". EVERY 'person' is JUST, Naturally DIFFERENT, with EACH and EVERY one 'being' JUST, UNIQUELY DIFFERENT, or SPECIAL. But, again, NO 'more' 'special' than "another" one IS.

From 'this perspective' EVERY 'person' IS 'special', but ONLY 'as special' as EVERY one "else" IS. EVERY one being AS DIFFERENT as, ALSO, IS EQUALLY the EXACT SAME. That is; EVERY 'person' is the EXACT SAME in that EVERY 'person' is made up of 'thoughts and emotions' ONLY, BUT, EVERY 'person' is DIFFERENT in that EVERY 'person' is made up VERY DIFFERENT 'thoughts', or 'thinking'.

Now, I could go on for, relatively, 'ages' in FURTHER FITTING 'these views and perspectives' IN TOGETHER WITH 'other views and perspectives' PERFECTLY, while ALWAYS CONTINUALLY ALSO VERIFYING and PROVING 'each of them', while ALSO FORMING A CRYSTAL CLEAR ILLUSTRATION of the True and BIG Picture of 'Life', 'Everything', or ALL-THERE-IS.

That is; IF 'you' would like me to continue on here.

PLEASE DEMONSTRATE WHERE and WHY my so-called 'statement' IS INCORRECT or WRONG "gary childress".

I AM LOOKING VERY FORWARD to 'your' REPLY.

[Gary Childress]

So, 'you', people, or persons, are just the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY.

"I" am not "JUST"

the non visible 'being' part of the 'human being', which is just made up of 'thoughts/thinking', and, 'internal feeling/emotions' ONLY.

Do you agree?

[Lacewing]

Is the name of your book going to be, "how people react when someone going by the screen name "Age" acts like an asshole toward them"?

Book title: 'THEE Truth'
Subtitle: 'Here IS Another EXAMPLE of a NutJob who IMAGINES theMselves as distinctly KNOWING and Superior to huManKind'

Blurb on the back of the book: 'Although many such authors have come before, this one is unique with his use of capital letters. This 400-page book promises to offer exhausting repetition of the author's claims and grievances, in the days when it was written, while not revealing anything.'