The Cult of Philosophy

[Atla]

LOL you, after ALL this time, STILL can NOT READ and COMPREHEND correctly.

A QUESTION can NOT be 'incorrect'.

A QUESTION is ASKED for CLARIFICATION.

(skip wall of text)

I didn't say that the question is incorrect, again it's you who fails at basic comprehension (for all your imagined 'readers' to see ).

But I NEVER said, that you said, that the question is incorrect.

You just did above.

[Age]

I didn't say that the question is incorrect, again it's you who fails at basic comprehension (for all your imagined 'readers' to see ).

But I NEVER said, that you said, that the question is incorrect.

You just did above.

LOL you REALLY ARE A VERY STUPID LITTLE one "atla".

And, you talk like a VERY LITTLE one as well. "You just did above", you say.

Do NOT forget this is a 'philosophy forum'. FIND FAULT in what I write, HIGHLIGHT or SHOW 'it', then PROVIDE YOUR 'reasoning'.

[Atla]

But I NEVER said, that you said, that the question is incorrect.

You just did above.

LOL you REALLY ARE A VERY STUPID LITTLE one "atla".

And, you talk like a VERY LITTLE one as well. "You just did above", you say.

Do NOT forget this is a 'philosophy forum'. FIND FAULT in what I write, HIGHLIGHT or SHOW 'it', then PROVIDE YOUR 'reasoning'.

See, now you were even denying to have written that very previous comment. First you lie, then you call someone else little and stupid because of it.

[Ansiktsburk]

Think the OP is too pessimistic. academic kind of Philosophy is hard for the layman that actually reads papers and reads the hard books to see as world changing. Can a rabbit be called a rabbit in another universe like. But the big guys go come up with great books, readable for everyone, and do discuss controversial subjects of the day. And for me lowly amateur, reading stuff thats hardcore seems strangely awarding.

There are guys that seems find the pleasure of striving to argue, prove that everyone else is stupid, argue for the sake of arguing, and why not. Others that try to find truths by cutting big problems to piecemeal and try by arguing to find certainties there, and still other guys that makes wider statements without having proofs, prepared to get objections. Whatever rock peoples boats. The thinking as such is a pretty powerful force and what discipline than philosophy comes closer to that?

[Age]

You just did above.

LOL you REALLY ARE A VERY STUPID LITTLE one "atla".

And, you talk like a VERY LITTLE one as well. "You just did above", you say.

Do NOT forget this is a 'philosophy forum'. FIND FAULT in what I write, HIGHLIGHT or SHOW 'it', then PROVIDE YOUR 'reasoning'.

See, now you were even denying to have written that very previous comment. First you lie, then you call someone else little and stupid because of it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

[simplicity]

If 'you', ANOTHER poster, SAYS and CLAIMS some 'thing', and I ask 'you' a CLARIFYING question, then HOW EXACTLY is it ONLY 'me' who can answer those questions?

Because knowing the answer comes before asking the question. True answers are ALWAYS incredibly simple. It is the conditions that people place on their thinking that causes the complexities [and confusion] to arise.

[simplicity]

The thinking as such is a pretty powerful force and what discipline than philosophy comes closer to that?

Everything that doesn't involve thinking.

[Age]

If 'you', ANOTHER poster, SAYS and CLAIMS some 'thing', and I ask 'you' a CLARIFYING question, then HOW EXACTLY is it ONLY 'me' who can answer those questions?

Because knowing the answer comes before asking the question.

So, if I ask a "specialist" on outer solar-system planetary systems about, for example, 'What is it out there?", then how exactly is what you CLAIM here, true?

Or, when a child asks a "priest/preacher", 'If God created EVERY thing, then who created God?", what you are saying here is the child KNOWS the answer beforehand, correct?

Or, what you WILL say and CLAIM here is that 'I ALREADY KNOW what YOUR answers WILL BE here, correct?

True answers are ALWAYS incredibly simple.

What I like to SAY and CLAIM is; ANY and ALL 'meaningful' answers are ALREADY, instinctively, KNOWN, deep within, but which are NOT YET KNOWN, consciously. However, when one LEARNS and UNDERSTANDS HOW to find ALL True answers, then the 'meaningful answers' in Life can and do become consciously KNOWN, almost instantaneously.

But, OBVIOUSLY, what type of ice cream, for example, the one known as "simplicity" likes to eat, I do NOT YET KNOW, correct?

Or, do you STILL want to SAY and CLAIM that "knowing the answer comes before asking the question".

It is the conditions that people place on their thinking that causes the complexities [and confusion] to arise.

I prefer to just say that it is 'thinking', itself, which causes the CONFUSION, and BLOCKS and PREVENTS the KNOWING from ARISING and COMING-TO-LIGHT. 'thinking', itself, is what and who 'you', human beings, are, by the way. 'KNOWING' is what and who 'I', of which there is ONLY One of.

[simplicity]

So, if I ask a "specialist" on outer solar-system planetary systems about, for example, 'What is it out there?", then how exactly is what you CLAIM here, true?

Because he doesn't know and you know that he doesn't know.

Or, when a child asks a "priest/preacher", 'If God created EVERY thing, then who created God?", what you are saying here is the child KNOWS the answer beforehand, correct?

Yes, the child knows that the clergy-person does not know.

Or, what you WILL say and CLAIM here is that 'I ALREADY KNOW what YOUR answers WILL BE here, correct?

No, what you intuitively know is that 99.999...% of knowledge is un-grasp-able even if your conscious mind refuses to accept such a proposition. For simple questions such as the ice cream I prefer, you assumed that I like ice cream. Why? We make assumptions all the time that have no basis what-so-ever in Reality.

[Age]

So, if I ask a "specialist" on outer solar-system planetary systems about, for example, 'What is it out there?", then how exactly is what you CLAIM here, true?

Because he doesn't know and you know that he doesn't know.

What are you going on about here now?

You do NOT even KNOW what 'question' I am TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

How do you KNOW "he" does NOT know, and, that I supposedly KNOW that "he" does NOT know?

I, for example, could ask that person a question that I KNOW that I do NOT know the answer to, but which they might, like, for example, 'Is there a name for that third rock from the star of a particular solar system, and, if so, then what is the name that has been given for that place?'

The reason people are, literally, so called, "specialists" is because they are meant to KNOW MORE, than "others" do, on a particular subject.

Or, when a child asks a "priest/preacher", 'If God created EVERY thing, then who created God?", what you are saying here is the child KNOWS the answer beforehand, correct?

Yes, the child knows that the clergy-person does not know.

You, ONCE AGAIN, appear to have completely and utterly MISSED what is going on here.

Does the child KNOW the answer to THE ACTUAL QUESTION or NOT? In other words, does the child KNOW 'who created God' (the supposed Creator of EVERY thing)?

Let us NOT FORGET what you ACTUALLY SAID here. You WROTE and CLAIMED:
Because knowing the answer comes before asking the question.

Which means 'you' and OTHER 'human beings' KNOW the answer, to 'the' question, BEFORE asking 'the' question. Is this correct, or NOT?

If NOT, then 'what' do you MEAN, EXACTLY?

But if this is correct, then REALLY?

Or, what you WILL say and CLAIM here is that 'I ALREADY KNOW what YOUR answers WILL BE here, correct?

No, what you intuitively know is that 99.999...% of knowledge is un-grasp-able even if your conscious mind refuses to accept such a proposition.

I do NOT 'intuitively know' this AT ALL.

FOR ONE, I do NOT have a so-called "conscious mind". And, if you want to CLAIM that I, your, or "others" have a so-called "conscious mind", THEN DEFINE who AND what is the ONE that HAS this so-called "conscious mind", AND THEN DEFINE what a 'mind' IS EXACTLY. After you have done this ACCURATELY and IRREFUTABLY, THEN you can go on an EXPLAIN the DIFFERENCE between a 'mind', which is 'conscious' from a 'mind', which is NOT 'conscious'.

Now, let us MOVE ALONG to what is 'it', EXACTLY, which you CLAIM 'knowledge' is so-called "un-grasp-able" to?

AND, what is the 'knowledge', EXACTLY, which is 'able to be grasp'?

For simple questions such as the ice cream I prefer, you assumed that I like ice cream. Why?

You made an EXTREMELY GREAT POINT here, and which SHOWS just how SIMPLY and EASILY ASSUMPTIONS are made, BEFORE CLARIFICATION is GAINED, FIRST.

MY APOLOGIES, PROFUSELY.

I do NOT YET KNOW If the one known as "simplicity" here likes to eat ice cream or NOT. So, in the MUCH BETTER 'world', (which, by the way, is about to come-to-fruition), I would NOT have made this TOTALLY OBVIOUS and COMPLETELY STUPID MISTAKE, and would have just FIRST asked the CLARIFYING question:
Do you like ice cream?

And, if your answer was, "Yes", and I was STILL somewhat INTERESTED, then, and ONLY THEN, I would have GAINED CLARITY, and thus KNOWN, more ACCURATELY, if you liked to eat ice cream, and which ice cream you like to eat.

Also, what do you MEAN by "simple questions", EXACTLY?

We make assumptions all the time that have no basis what-so-ever in Reality.

VERY, VERY True. Like, for example;

What you intuitively know is that 99.999...% of knowledge is un-grasp-able even if your conscious mind refuses to accept such a proposition.

Knowing the answer comes before asking the question.

We NEED money to live.

The world is flat.

The sun revolves around the earth.

The Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING.

And,

God is a "he".

What WILL COME-TO-LIGHT, and WILL become BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, to 'you', human beings, is that ALL of these examples were just more examples of the ASSUMPTIONS that were continually being made, hitherto, that had NO basis what-so-ever in 'Reality', Itself.

But, OBVIOUSLY, one HAS TO have GAINED CLARITY about, and thus COME-TO-KNOW, what 'Reality', Itself, ACTUALLY IS, FIRST.

[RCSaunders]

A QUESTION can NOT be 'incorrect'.

What language is this?

"Cannot," in English is one word. To write, "cannot," as two words is either bad English grammar or not English. Nothing says you have to use correct English or grammar, but to most English speakers and readers, not to is a sign of ignorance.

Capitalizing words like, "question," and, "not," is also bad English, which English speakers and readers will immediately recognize as ignorance of the language leading to the assumption what is written by such an ignorant author is likely just as wrong. Again, nothing says you have to use correct English if you don't mind advertising that you are an ignoramus.

As for a question being incorrect. Half of philosophy is nonsense attempting to answer wrong questions, like, "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin," or, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

If one want's to know how to get to the drugstore, "What does a pickle taste like?" is an incorrect question. Of course a question can be incorrect. Think before you write.

Please don't respond to this post unless it is to thank me. I'm not making an argument, just pointing out some things that might help you. If you are not interested, just ignore them.

[Age]

A QUESTION can NOT be 'incorrect'.

What language is this?

"Cannot," in English is one word. To write, "cannot," as two words is either bad English grammar or not English. Nothing says you have to use correct English or grammar, but to most English speakers and readers, not to is a sign of ignorance.

And what are you BASING this 'most' on, EXACTLY?

And, are you IGNORANT of the Fact that the use of words, language, is an EVER-CHANGING, thus EVER-EVOLVING process?

And, are you NOT able to work out what I am SAYING and MEANING above here?

Capitalizing words like, "question," and, "not," is also bad English, which English speakers and readers will immediately recognize as ignorance of the language leading to the assumption what is written by such an ignorant author is likely just as wrong. [/quote]

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one is absolutely FREE to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing. AND, by ALL MEANS, PLEASE KEEP ASSUMING 'things' here.

If I AM IGNORANT of the so-called "english language", then so be it.

And, if 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, can be SO EASILY LED to ASSUME that 'I' am an IGNORANT AUTHOR, which MEANS, to 'you', people, that what 'I' write is ALSO 'likely' to be JUST AS WRONG, then so be it. My job is BEING DONE here.

Who are the Truly IGNORANT ones can be VERY EASILY and VERY CLEARLY SEEN here. Although, and OBVIOUSLY, it takes longer for some people to SEE 'things', which "others" could ALREADY SEE.

By the way, ASSUMING that because one is, SUPPOSEDLY, "ignorant" of A LANGUAGE, then this MEANS that what that one SAYS or WRITES is then likely to be WRONG, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'egocentricity', 'superiority complex', and of one who is Truly 'conceited'.

By the way, have ANY of 'you' EVER considered JUST ASKING for CLARITY, BEFORE you MAKE the ASSUMPTION that "another" is "LIKELY to be WRONG"?

The ABSURDITY of ASSUMING what someone SAYS is "LIKELY to be WRONG" just because they do NOT use a language the EXACT SAME WAY that 'you' do, is about as ABSURD and ILLOGICAL as 'things' could get.

Again, nothing says you have to use correct English if you don't mind advertising that you are an ignoramus.

The CONTRADICTION here is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

So, one does NOT use words, LAUGHABLY, "correctly" to you, then, to you, they are ADVERTISING that they are an IGNORAMUS.

Okay. Are you now ABLE to DIRECT "others" to what 'it' IS, which they can base "correctness" off of, EXACTLY?

If no, then is this a SIGN of being a True IGNORAMUS?

If it is NOT a SIGN of being a True IGNORAMUS, to YOU, then what you call it when someone makes a CLAIM, but they are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE of being ABLE to back up and support their CLAIM/S?

But, if you are ABLE to DIRECT 'us' to what is, allegedly, and so-called, "correct English", then we AWAIT 'your' GUIDANCE.

Until then is it okay with you we just ASSUME you are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE to do so.

As for a question being incorrect. Half of philosophy is nonsense attempting to answer wrong questions, like, "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin," or, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

LOL "wrong questions".

Have you EVER considered to just ask the "questioner" to CLARIFY, for example, 'What is an angel?' 'How big are they?' and/or 'What is the ACTUAL size of the head, and/or the point, of a pin?'

Or, do you just JUMP to the ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION that they are just "WRONG questions", and so ALSO then just JUDGE the one who asks "such questions"?

Oh, and by the way, the REASON WHY there is SOME 'thing' rather than NO 'thing' is BECAUSE it could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

This becomes FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, when one LEARNS how to LOOK AT and SEE 'things', CORRECTLY.

But because 'you' are NOT YET ABLE to do this, 'you' are just STILL IGNORANT of these IRREFUTABLE Facts.

If one want's to know how to get to the drugstore, "What does a pickle taste like?" is an incorrect question. Of course a question can be incorrect. Think before you write.

LOL But If one wants to KNOW how to get to the drugstore, then the question, "What does a pickle taste like?" would NOT be asked. Therefore, 'that question' does NOT exist, in that situation. Which MEANS this IMAGINED ONLY 'incorrect question' does NOT even exist, in the FIRST PLACE, nor in the 'REAL WORLD'.

So, your EXAMPLE is just moot.

Please don't respond to this post unless it is to thank me.

Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of 'illusory superiority', at its best.

PLEASE continue writing the way 'you' do "rcsaunders". 'you' are LIVING PROOF for what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

I'm not making an argument, just pointing out some things that might help you. If you are not interested, just ignore them.

I WILL respond if I WANT TO.

Are you, AT LEAST, capable of understanding what I have SAID and WRITTEN this time?

If no, then that is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE, especially considering what you have gone through and the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

[RCSaunders]

A QUESTION can NOT be 'incorrect'.

What language is this?

"Cannot," in English is one word. To write, "cannot," as two words is either bad English grammar or not English. Nothing says you have to use correct English or grammar, but to most English speakers and readers, not to is a sign of ignorance.

And what are you BASING this 'most' on, EXACTLY?

And, are you IGNORANT of the Fact that the use of words, language, is an EVER-CHANGING, thus EVER-EVOLVING process?

And, are you NOT able to work out what I am SAYING and MEANING above here?

Capitalizing words like, "question," and, "not," is also bad English, which English speakers and readers will immediately recognize as ignorance of the language leading to the assumption what is written by such an ignorant author is likely just as wrong.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one is absolutely FREE to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing. AND, by ALL MEANS, PLEASE KEEP ASSUMING 'things' here.

If I AM IGNORANT of the so-called "english language", then so be it.

And, if 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, can be SO EASILY LED to ASSUME that 'I' am an IGNORANT AUTHOR, which MEANS, to 'you', people, that what 'I' write is ALSO 'likely' to be JUST AS WRONG, then so be it. My job is BEING DONE here.

Who are the Truly IGNORANT ones can be VERY EASILY and VERY CLEARLY SEEN here. Although, and OBVIOUSLY, it takes longer for some people to SEE 'things', which "others" could ALREADY SEE.

By the way, ASSUMING that because one is, SUPPOSEDLY, "ignorant" of A LANGUAGE, then this MEANS that what that one SAYS or WRITES is then likely to be WRONG, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'egocentricity', 'superiority complex', and of one who is Truly 'conceited'.

By the way, have ANY of 'you' EVER considered JUST ASKING for CLARITY, BEFORE you MAKE the ASSUMPTION that "another" is "LIKELY to be WRONG"?

The ABSURDITY of ASSUMING what someone SAYS is "LIKELY to be WRONG" just because they do NOT use a language the EXACT SAME WAY that 'you' do, is about as ABSURD and ILLOGICAL as 'things' could get.

Again, nothing says you have to use correct English if you don't mind advertising that you are an ignoramus.

The CONTRADICTION here is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

So, one does NOT use words, LAUGHABLY, "correctly" to you, then, to you, they are ADVERTISING that they are an IGNORAMUS.

Okay. Are you now ABLE to DIRECT "others" to what 'it' IS, which they can base "correctness" off of, EXACTLY?

If no, then is this a SIGN of being a True IGNORAMUS?

If it is NOT a SIGN of being a True IGNORAMUS, to YOU, then what you call it when someone makes a CLAIM, but they are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE of being ABLE to back up and support their CLAIM/S?

But, if you are ABLE to DIRECT 'us' to what is, allegedly, and so-called, "correct English", then we AWAIT 'your' GUIDANCE.

Until then is it okay with you we just ASSUME you are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE to do so.

As for a question being incorrect. Half of philosophy is nonsense attempting to answer wrong questions, like, "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin," or, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

LOL "wrong questions".

Have you EVER considered to just ask the "questioner" to CLARIFY, for example, 'What is an angel?' 'How big are they?' and/or 'What is the ACTUAL size of the head, and/or the point, of a pin?'

Or, do you just JUMP to the ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION that they are just "WRONG questions", and so ALSO then just JUDGE the one who asks "such questions"?

Oh, and by the way, the REASON WHY there is SOME 'thing' rather than NO 'thing' is BECAUSE it could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

This becomes FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, when one LEARNS how to LOOK AT and SEE 'things', CORRECTLY.

But because 'you' are NOT YET ABLE to do this, 'you' are just STILL IGNORANT of these IRREFUTABLE Facts.

If one want's to know how to get to the drugstore, "What does a pickle taste like?" is an incorrect question. Of course a question can be incorrect. Think before you write.

LOL But If one wants to KNOW how to get to the drugstore, then the question, "What does a pickle taste like?" would NOT be asked. Therefore, 'that question' does NOT exist, in that situation. Which MEANS this IMAGINED ONLY 'incorrect question' does NOT even exist, in the FIRST PLACE, nor in the 'REAL WORLD'.

So, your EXAMPLE is just moot.

Please don't respond to this post unless it is to thank me.

Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of 'illusory superiority', at its best.

PLEASE continue writing the way 'you' do "rcsaunders". 'you' are LIVING PROOF for what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

I'm not making an argument, just pointing out some things that might help you. If you are not interested, just ignore them.

I WILL respond if I WANT TO.

Are you, AT LEAST, capable of understanding what I have SAID and WRITTEN this time?

If no, then that is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE, especially considering what you have gone through and the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

You go to a lot of trouble to prove to the world what you are, and it's working!

[Age]

What language is this?

"Cannot," in English is one word. To write, "cannot," as two words is either bad English grammar or not English. Nothing says you have to use correct English or grammar, but to most English speakers and readers, not to is a sign of ignorance.

And what are you BASING this 'most' on, EXACTLY?

And, are you IGNORANT of the Fact that the use of words, language, is an EVER-CHANGING, thus EVER-EVOLVING process?

And, are you NOT able to work out what I am SAYING and MEANING above here?

Capitalizing words like, "question," and, "not," is also bad English, which English speakers and readers will immediately recognize as ignorance of the language leading to the assumption what is written by such an ignorant author is likely just as wrong.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANY one is absolutely FREE to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing. AND, by ALL MEANS, PLEASE KEEP ASSUMING 'things' here.

If I AM IGNORANT of the so-called "english language", then so be it.

And, if 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, can be SO EASILY LED to ASSUME that 'I' am an IGNORANT AUTHOR, which MEANS, to 'you', people, that what 'I' write is ALSO 'likely' to be JUST AS WRONG, then so be it. My job is BEING DONE here.

Who are the Truly IGNORANT ones can be VERY EASILY and VERY CLEARLY SEEN here. Although, and OBVIOUSLY, it takes longer for some people to SEE 'things', which "others" could ALREADY SEE.

By the way, ASSUMING that because one is, SUPPOSEDLY, "ignorant" of A LANGUAGE, then this MEANS that what that one SAYS or WRITES is then likely to be WRONG, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'egocentricity', 'superiority complex', and of one who is Truly 'conceited'.

By the way, have ANY of 'you' EVER considered JUST ASKING for CLARITY, BEFORE you MAKE the ASSUMPTION that "another" is "LIKELY to be WRONG"?

The ABSURDITY of ASSUMING what someone SAYS is "LIKELY to be WRONG" just because they do NOT use a language the EXACT SAME WAY that 'you' do, is about as ABSURD and ILLOGICAL as 'things' could get.

Again, nothing says you have to use correct English if you don't mind advertising that you are an ignoramus.

The CONTRADICTION here is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

So, one does NOT use words, LAUGHABLY, "correctly" to you, then, to you, they are ADVERTISING that they are an IGNORAMUS.

Okay. Are you now ABLE to DIRECT "others" to what 'it' IS, which they can base "correctness" off of, EXACTLY?

If no, then is this a SIGN of being a True IGNORAMUS?

If it is NOT a SIGN of being a True IGNORAMUS, to YOU, then what you call it when someone makes a CLAIM, but they are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE of being ABLE to back up and support their CLAIM/S?

But, if you are ABLE to DIRECT 'us' to what is, allegedly, and so-called, "correct English", then we AWAIT 'your' GUIDANCE.

Until then is it okay with you we just ASSUME you are completely AND utterly INCAPABLE to do so.

As for a question being incorrect. Half of philosophy is nonsense attempting to answer wrong questions, like, "how many angels can dance on the point of a pin," or, "why is there something rather than nothing?"

LOL "wrong questions".

Have you EVER considered to just ask the "questioner" to CLARIFY, for example, 'What is an angel?' 'How big are they?' and/or 'What is the ACTUAL size of the head, and/or the point, of a pin?'

Or, do you just JUMP to the ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION that they are just "WRONG questions", and so ALSO then just JUDGE the one who asks "such questions"?

Oh, and by the way, the REASON WHY there is SOME 'thing' rather than NO 'thing' is BECAUSE it could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY.

This becomes FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN, when one LEARNS how to LOOK AT and SEE 'things', CORRECTLY.

But because 'you' are NOT YET ABLE to do this, 'you' are just STILL IGNORANT of these IRREFUTABLE Facts.

If one want's to know how to get to the drugstore, "What does a pickle taste like?" is an incorrect question. Of course a question can be incorrect. Think before you write.

LOL But If one wants to KNOW how to get to the drugstore, then the question, "What does a pickle taste like?" would NOT be asked. Therefore, 'that question' does NOT exist, in that situation. Which MEANS this IMAGINED ONLY 'incorrect question' does NOT even exist, in the FIRST PLACE, nor in the 'REAL WORLD'.

So, your EXAMPLE is just moot.

Please don't respond to this post unless it is to thank me.

Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of 'illusory superiority', at its best.

PLEASE continue writing the way 'you' do "rcsaunders". 'you' are LIVING PROOF for what I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

I'm not making an argument, just pointing out some things that might help you. If you are not interested, just ignore them.

I WILL respond if I WANT TO.

Are you, AT LEAST, capable of understanding what I have SAID and WRITTEN this time?

If no, then that is PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE, especially considering what you have gone through and the way you LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

You go to a lot of trouble to prove to the world what you are, and it's working!

OKAY.

AND GREAT, by the way.