Name that fallacy...

[Age]

I'd like to know what medication Age is on.
And if he is not on any, then I want to know why!!

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others"

You don't seem to notice the irony that right here in this post you are doing what you are describing as negative.

BUT WHO EVER SAID or CLAIMED that 'it' WAS NEGATIVE?

ALSO, QUITE A DEAL OF MY TALKING ABOUT 'you', human beings, BACK IN, those 'OLDEN DAYS', IS in regards to 'you', people, DOING the VERY OPPOSITE IF WHAT I HAVE BEEN and AM DOING here.

Which IS; ATTEMPTING TO GAIN MORE CLARITY and MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT 'your' VIEWS and CLAIMS here.

ALSO NOTED ARE the PARTS that you LEFT OUT.

[Iwannaplato]

Where, when, how, what, and WHY, EXACTLY?

Right there. Generally people, myself included, are referring to what they just quoted. And I justified it as much as you did.

and IS BELIEVING IS here, BUT which 'others" have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL TO 'what' 'it' IS even talking ABOUT or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

ditto.

BUT 'this' was/is A VERY PERSISTENT HABIT OF 'this one'. ACCUSING "others" OF 'things' BUT NOT SAYING 'what' 'those things' ARE, EXACTLY,

ditto. I've taken a tool from your toolchest. Thank you.

Would you now CARE TO ANY TIME I HAVE ACCUSED ANY OF 'you', human beings, OF 'things', where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT SAID what 'those things' were?

You quoted and accused. I quoted and accused.

ISeething.

WELL 'this one's' PRESUMPTION here IS OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong, ONCE AGAIN I will add.

No assumption, this is easily checked. You said seeing, but what I had said was 'seething.' It's fine. You misread. No problem, it happens, but I corrected.

Unless, OF COURSE, 'it' IS REFERRING TO HOW 'it' IS feeling here.

I am a he, Ken.

AND WHAT VERY SPECIFIC TYPE OF 'person' IS 'that', TO 'you', "iwannaplato'?

I've made that clear in a number of posts.

[Iwannaplato]

BUT WHO EVER SAID or CLAIMED that 'it' WAS NEGATIVE?

Again, if this is a serious question on your part, I suggest you communicate with people in person in this Age personality. If you don't understand that it is a clear assertion of that in your post, given your posts in general, then you are far from fluent in the English language at this time. Fluency is more that understanding the meaning of words - which shift in context - and grammar. It is more subtlle and complicated than that. In person people will be able to correct you more easily and also read your body language - which both adds cues about meaning, AND shows what is easier to hide in an online forum like this with only words on a screen to communicate with.

You need time in person with people so that this persona Age can speak like a native and understand like a native.

ALSO, QUITE A DEAL OF MY TALKING ABOUT 'you', human beings, BACK IN, those 'OLDEN DAYS', IS in regards to 'you', people, DOING the VERY OPPOSITE IF WHAT I HAVE BEEN and AM DOING here.

Which IS; ATTEMPTING TO GAIN MORE CLARITY and MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT 'your' VIEWS and CLAIMS here.

Many entities and people are aware of their ego ideal goals and not the ego-dystonic stuff that is often obvious to others. AGain, I suggest Age, rather than Ken, goes out and meets people and explores being Age IRL.

ALSO NOTED ARE the PARTS that you LEFT OUT.

Likewise. But they burst through in your cases, now and again, so one isn't always just working with the clues, which are many.

[FlashDangerpants]

TELLING me what TO DO will NOT get you ANYWHERE.

This paragragraph is a single continuous thought and not to be broken up into a bunch of unrelated sentences, so please do not do that or I will send you back to this post and ask you to try again. The analogy here is to an elevator repair man who says he can answer questions of HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY. When asked HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY he then replies that you push the button and then the elevator arrives and it takes you to the other floors of the building. Nobody needs an expert on elevators to tell them that. And nobody needs you to tell them that brains store information.

If there is ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' MORE that ABSOLUTELY ANY one REALLY WANTS TO KNOW, or REALLY WANTS CLARIFIED, then 'they' WILL, OBVIOUSLY, JUST ASK the ACTUAL and SPECIFIC CLARIFY QUESTION.

SIMPLE, REALLY.

BUT, SOME brains WITH ALREADY PREEXISTING VERY SPECIFIC BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS PERSISTING, ARE NOT ABLE TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND JUST HOW Truly SIMPLE and EASY 'things' ACTUALLY ARE here.

And 'this' IS perpetuated even MORE when, and by, A brain that IS BELIEVING that 'things' ARE ACTUALLY FAR MORE COMPLICATED here than 'they' REALLY ARE..

This next paragpraph is also a continuous thought, and is a follow up to the previous one, please do not dismember it in your response.

Okay.

When the elevator breaks down, the elevator repair man who turns up and says "the problem here is that the BUTTONS don't 'WORK', to bring the ELEVATOR DOWN to your 'Floor'". The repair man is supposed to know HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY, which includes things about pulleys, ropes, and electronics. In other "words".... stuff that the average pedestrian doesn't already know because it's completely, worthlessly, obvious to any raging idiot.

HAD you, or WOULD you, JUST CONSIDER/ED that JUST MAYBE the button IS ACTUALLY BROKEN, or JUST NOT WORKING, and/or that 'that human being' was JUST INFORMING 'you' IF this Fact, BEFORE 'they' went about FIXING the ACTUAL 'problem' or 'issue' here.

Or, is 'this' 'your story', AND 'things' can ONLY be SEEN TO OCCUR or TO HAPPEN in ONLY, A, VERY LIMITED WAY/S.

This closing paragraph continues the trend of not being suitable for your one sentence at a time approach, and I politely request that you not take it apart either.

Okay. 'This', by the way, IS ANOTHER WAY, which be USED TO 'TRY TO' DEFLECT AWAY FROM 'things', but let us CONTINUE.

Your offer to describe HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY mirrors the fake elevator experts offer to describe HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY and is equally vapid and worthless.

your OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO CONFLATE AT LEAST TWO VIEWS/PERSPECTIVES here, UNINTENTIONALLY or NOT, SHOWS and PROVES JUST HOW MUCH 'you:, "flashdangerpants', REALLY ARE MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or MISINTERPRETING here.

AND IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to KNOW WHERE, HOW, and WHY, EXACTLY, then just let me know.

If you don't know how the brain actually works, just say so.

[Sculptor]

I'd like to know what medication Age is on.
And if he is not on any, then I want to know why!!

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

[Iwannaplato]

I'd like to know what medication Age is on.
And if he is not on any, then I want to know why!!

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

It might be better to ask what medications Ken is on and/or what medications have been suggested for Ken. Channeled entities are as likely to have mental disorders, but medications won't work on them.

[Sculptor]

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

It might be better to ask what medications Ken is on and/or what medications have been suggested for Ken. Channeled entities are as likely to have mental disorders, but medications won't work on them.

Does Age identify as a Channeled entity

[Age]

Where, when, how, what, and WHY, EXACTLY?

Right there. Generally people, myself included, are referring to what they just quoted. And I justified it as much as you did.

AND ONCE AGAIN 'this one' WILL NOT DO 'that' , which I COULD OF and WOULD OF, IF ASKED.

and IS BELIEVING IS here, BUT which 'others" have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL TO 'what' 'it' IS even talking ABOUT or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

ditto.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF you HAVE NO IDEA, AT ALL, and were Truly CURIOUS and WANTED TO LEARN, and KNOW, MORE, then you WOULD HAVE ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION. BUT, you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT.

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

BUT 'this' was/is A VERY PERSISTENT HABIT OF 'this one'. ACCUSING "others" OF 'things' BUT NOT SAYING 'what' 'those things' ARE, EXACTLY,

ditto. I've taken a tool from your toolchest. Thank you.

ONCE AGAIN, IF you think or BELIEVE that you have NOT YET, FULLY, UNDERSTOOD or COMPREHENDED SOME 'thing:, which I have SAID or CLAIMED here, then feel ABSOLUTELY FREE TO JUST ASK me SOME CLARIFY QUESTIONS.

Would you now CARE TO ANY TIME I HAVE ACCUSED ANY OF 'you', human beings, OF 'things', where I have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT SAID what 'those things' were?

You quoted and accused. I quoted and accused.

OF COURSE I QUOTED and ACCUSED, 'you', people, OF 'things' that 'you' ACTUALLY DO.

WOULD you now CARE to LIST THOSE TIMES WHEN I HAVE SUPPOSEDLY NOT REFERRED TO, 'that:, which I have been ACCUSING 'you' OF?

IF no, then WHY NOT?

ISeething.

WELL 'this one's' PRESUMPTION here IS OBVIOUSLY ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong, ONCE AGAIN I will add.

No assumption, this is easily checked. You said seeing, but what I had said was 'seething.' It's fine. You misread. No problem, it happens, but I corrected.

BUT I READ, and WAS REFERRING TO, your 'seething' comment and remark here.

As can be CHECKED, and SEEN.

Unless, OF COURSE, 'it' IS REFERRING TO HOW 'it' IS feeling here.

I am a he, Ken.

Even here 'you' ARE Wrong and ABSOLUTELY. But 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT YET PREPARED FOR 'this Fact', NEITHER..

AND WHAT VERY SPECIFIC TYPE OF 'person' IS 'that', TO 'you', "iwannaplato'?

I've made that clear in a number of posts.

ONCE MORE the HABIT OF 'you' ALLUDING ONLY and NOT ACTUALLY CLARIFYING PREVAILS AGAIN here.

[Iwannaplato]

AND ONCE AGAIN 'this one' WILL NOT DO 'that' , which I COULD OF and WOULD OF, IF ASKED.

Yes, people are different from each other Ken.

WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF you HAVE NO IDEA, AT ALL, and were Truly CURIOUS and WANTED TO LEARN, and KNOW, MORE, then you WOULD HAVE ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION. BUT, you OBVIOUSLY DID NOT.

of course, but I've already explained that I am not interested and why not.

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

So, if I am not curious about your thoughts, Ken, then I am not curious. Really poor, fallacious logic, Ken. And, in addition, it's incorrect. So, poor reasoning - and very narcissistic reasoning, by the way - and in addition a false conclusion. Mentioning the latter because people can use false reasoning, sometimes, to reach correct conclusions, but you didn't have that luck this time.

ONCE AGAIN, IF you think or BELIEVE that you have NOT YET, FULLY, UNDERSTOOD or COMPREHENDED SOME 'thing:, which I have SAID or CLAIMED here, then feel ABSOLUTELY FREE TO JUST ASK me SOME CLARIFY QUESTIONS.

See above on why that is not happening. And then in other posts where I explained this in greater detail. Your explanations, and the 'mindread' reasons, for why are narcissistic.

OF COURSE I QUOTED and ACCUSED, 'you', people, OF 'things' that 'you' ACTUALLY DO.

The typography makes this gibberish.

BUT I READ, and WAS REFERRING TO, your 'seething' comment and remark here.

It's really ok.

Even here 'you' ARE Wrong and ABSOLUTELY. But 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT YET PREPARED FOR 'this Fact', NEITHER..

"Either" is the correct word to end that sentence with, given your intention, Ken. Then to the specific topic: If you don't respect your readers, well, you won't, Ken. It probably will make most people even warier of you. Or amused. Or both. The postive side of that is that I think either of those reactions is a good one. Since, they become the frame for your judgments of them.

I've made that clear in a number of posts.

ONCE MORE the HABIT OF 'you' ALLUDING ONLY and NOT ACTUALLY CLARIFYING PREVAILS AGAIN here.

If I have already clarified, or actually, on my own explained, this and other things and you can't remember it and this happens repeatedly. Hence; I am not alluding, here, I am showing a lack of interest. If you have a strong interest, you'll go back and find them, given that it is not my responsibility to repeat myself to someone who is so in love with questions nearly everything elicits them, even when this person has been given the answers already.

[Age]

BUT WHO EVER SAID or CLAIMED that 'it' WAS NEGATIVE?

Again, if this is a serious question on your part, I suggest you communicate with people in person in this Age personality. If you don't understand that it is a clear assertion of that in your post, given your posts in general, then you are far from fluent in the English language at this time. Fluency is more that understanding the meaning of words - which shift in context - and grammar. It is more subtlle and complicated than that. In person people will be able to correct you more easily and also read your body language - which both adds cues about meaning, AND shows what is easier to hide in an online forum like this with only words on a screen to communicate with.

You need time in person with people so that this persona Age can speak like a native and understand like a native.

ALSO, QUITE A DEAL OF MY TALKING ABOUT 'you', human beings, BACK IN, those 'OLDEN DAYS', IS in regards to 'you', people, DOING the VERY OPPOSITE IF WHAT I HAVE BEEN and AM DOING here.

Which IS; ATTEMPTING TO GAIN MORE CLARITY and MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT 'your' VIEWS and CLAIMS here.

Many entities and people are aware of their ego ideal goals and not the ego-dystonic stuff that is often obvious to others. AGain, I suggest Age, rather than Ken, goes out and meets people and explores being Age IRL.

ALSO NOTED ARE the PARTS that you LEFT OUT.

Likewise. But they burst through in your cases, now and again, so one isn't always just working with the clues, which are many.

NOTED, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have ONLY DEFLECTED here IN AN ATTEMPT TO NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you'.

BUT AGAIN 'this' IS OBVIOUSLY JUST 'your' HABIT, which IS COMING FROM A VERY DEEP-SEEDED FEAR. Which 'you' 'TRY TO' OVERCOME by JUDGING "others", NEGATIVELY, INSTEAD.

'your' ADVICE here ABOUT CHANGING 'the way/s' "another" behaves/communicates could be WELL TAKEN BY 'you', "iwannaplato".

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'you' here, do 'you' "iwannaplato"?

[Age]

This paragragraph is a single continuous thought and not to be broken up into a bunch of unrelated sentences, so please do not do that or I will send you back to this post and ask you to try again. The analogy here is to an elevator repair man who says he can answer questions of HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY. When asked HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY he then replies that you push the button and then the elevator arrives and it takes you to the other floors of the building. Nobody needs an expert on elevators to tell them that. And nobody needs you to tell them that brains store information.

If there is ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' MORE that ABSOLUTELY ANY one REALLY WANTS TO KNOW, or REALLY WANTS CLARIFIED, then 'they' WILL, OBVIOUSLY, JUST ASK the ACTUAL and SPECIFIC CLARIFY QUESTION.

SIMPLE, REALLY.

BUT, SOME brains WITH ALREADY PREEXISTING VERY SPECIFIC BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS PERSISTING, ARE NOT ABLE TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND JUST HOW Truly SIMPLE and EASY 'things' ACTUALLY ARE here.

And 'this' IS perpetuated even MORE when, and by, A brain that IS BELIEVING that 'things' ARE ACTUALLY FAR MORE COMPLICATED here than 'they' REALLY ARE..

This next paragpraph is also a continuous thought, and is a follow up to the previous one, please do not dismember it in your response.

Okay.

When the elevator breaks down, the elevator repair man who turns up and says "the problem here is that the BUTTONS don't 'WORK', to bring the ELEVATOR DOWN to your 'Floor'". The repair man is supposed to know HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY, which includes things about pulleys, ropes, and electronics. In other "words".... stuff that the average pedestrian doesn't already know because it's completely, worthlessly, obvious to any raging idiot.

HAD you, or WOULD you, JUST CONSIDER/ED that JUST MAYBE the button IS ACTUALLY BROKEN, or JUST NOT WORKING, and/or that 'that human being' was JUST INFORMING 'you' IF this Fact, BEFORE 'they' went about FIXING the ACTUAL 'problem' or 'issue' here.

Or, is 'this' 'your story', AND 'things' can ONLY be SEEN TO OCCUR or TO HAPPEN in ONLY, A, VERY LIMITED WAY/S.

This closing paragraph continues the trend of not being suitable for your one sentence at a time approach, and I politely request that you not take it apart either.

Okay. 'This', by the way, IS ANOTHER WAY, which be USED TO 'TRY TO' DEFLECT AWAY FROM 'things', but let us CONTINUE.

Your offer to describe HOW the Mind AND the brain WORK, EXACTLY mirrors the fake elevator experts offer to describe HOW the Buttons AND the elevator WORK, EXACTLY and is equally vapid and worthless.

your OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO CONFLATE AT LEAST TWO VIEWS/PERSPECTIVES here, UNINTENTIONALLY or NOT, SHOWS and PROVES JUST HOW MUCH 'you:, "flashdangerpants', REALLY ARE MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or MISINTERPRETING here.

AND IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to KNOW WHERE, HOW, and WHY, EXACTLY, then just let me know.

If you don't know how the brain actually works, just say so.

ONCE MORE what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is just HOW MUCH 'these adults', BACK THEN, had REALLY LOST CURIOSITY and REAL INTEREST in WANTING TO LEARN MORE and/or ANEW.

'They' REALLY JUST PREFERRED TO EXPRESS their OWN ALREADY OBTAINED BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, and EXPRESS 'them' IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. As, ONCE AGAIN, can be SEEN here, VERY CLEARLY.

[Age]

I'd like to know what medication Age is on.
And if he is not on any, then I want to know why!!

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

When 'you' say 'ON', what do 'you' MEAN here, EXACTLY, "sculptor"?

For example, are 'you' 'ON' ANY medications? and if so, then for HOW LONG have 'you' been 'ON' those medications, and HOW OFTEN do 'you' TAKE 'those medications'?

[Iwannaplato]

NOTED, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have ONLY DEFLECTED here IN AN ATTEMPT TO NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you'.

BUT AGAIN 'this' IS OBVIOUSLY JUST 'your' HABIT, which IS COMING FROM A VERY DEEP-SEEDED FEAR. Which 'you' 'TRY TO' OVERCOME by JUDGING "others", NEGATIVELY, INSTEAD.

'your' ADVICE here ABOUT CHANGING 'the way/s' "another" behaves/communicates could be WELL TAKEN BY 'you', "iwannaplato".

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'you' here, do 'you' "iwannaplato"?

There are a number of important things I would like to change about myself and which I am working on. That said I feel not the slightest urge to conform to your criteria and heaping judgments on me will have no effect.

Here again, Ken, you add on more mindreading and generalization. If I react to you in certain ways, then I am that in general, my whole life must be characterized by this. It's a great way for you not to learn about yourself, Ken, and of course it's your choice. I don't know if that's why you do it. But the behavior itself goes against your own values, which you seem not to notice. You notice only when other people do such things.

Very similar to what you did in your previous post:

'These adult ones', BACK THEN, REALLY HAD evolved INTO HAVING LOST JUST ABOUT ALL CURIOUSITY and JUST ABOUT ALL OF the 'WANTING TO LEARN and KNOW', AS WELL.

To which I responded:

So, if I am not curious about your thoughts, Ken, then I am not curious. Really poor, fallacious logic, Ken. And, in addition, it's incorrect. So, poor reasoning - and very narcissistic reasoning, by the way - and in addition a false conclusion. Mentioning the latter because people can use false reasoning, sometimes, to reach correct conclusions, but you didn't have that luck this time.

I see this type of response to people posting here in general. It's a toxic dominance form of communication, with, yes, narcissistic elements. You may not be like this IRL, when you interact with people as Ken. I certainly hope not. All I have to go on is the combination of toxic patterns like this here, and not just with me, which is also coupled to your sense of yourself as having transcended the problems of this time and having a special role.

[Age]

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

It might be better to ask what medications Ken is on and/or what medications have been suggested for Ken.

'This' MIGHT BE BETTER for "sculpto" TO DO. BUT, ONCE AGAIN:
Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and of HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Channeled entities are as likely to have mental disorders, but medications won't work on them.

[Sculptor]

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW MUCH and if HOW OFTEN 'these people' would TALK AMONG "themselves" ABOUT 'others", and of HOW LITTLE EFFORT and of HOW LITTLE TIME 'they' ACTUALLY SPENT ON ACTUALLY SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING ACTUAL CLARITY FROM 'the source', itself.

Fair comment.
What medications ARE YOU ON?

When 'you' say 'ON', what do 'you' MEAN here, EXACTLY, "sculptor"?

For example, are 'you' 'ON' ANY medications? and if so, then for HOW LONG have 'you' been 'ON' those medications, and HOW OFTEN do 'you' TAKE 'those medications'?

Yes I am. I take a daily Allopurinol which I have been "ON" for 15 years.

What you you "ON", or are you still confused by the use of the word?