Probably a silly question.

[Flannel Jesus]

Also, I suggest before you misunderstand me, nor anyone else, that you just obtain understanding through simple open questioning, for clarity and clarification, instead.

This is another theory of mind failure. There's an implication that when I've misunderstood you, I know I've misunderstood you. But most misunderstandings are not like that. The person misunderstanding often has no idea that they've misinterpreted the words and thoughts of the other person.

[Harbal]

Your accusation has always been unwarranted, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but it is not like you will admit this, correct?

No, you are incorrect, because I will admit it. Since I made the accusation I have seen you admit to being wrong about something.

So, are you saying here that 'what you have done' is just a matter of injustice instead of being just absurd?

Not quite. I am saying I accused you unjustly, but there was no absurdity involved. The accusation would only have been absurd if the point I was trying to make with it had been totally untrue. The fact is, you quite often insist that you are (irrefutably) right when it seems obvious to most that you are not. I have, however, since I made that accusation, changed my mind about you motivation. I no longer think you do it dishonestly; I now believe that it is because you genuinely believe you are right.

[commonsense]

What is the difference between a rhetorical question and a clarifying question?

A lot.

Will you provide the actual difference?

Maybe.

[Age]

The problem is that you are treating language in the same way you might treat maths; as a matter of pure logic, and language doesn't work like that.

It DOES, when language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then what comes about, which, by the way, fits in perfectly with, and is just another part of, the plan is the GUT and TOE. That is; the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything. When this is expressed, with language, which is what is only needed, then what the actual absolute Truth is exactly is expressed, and when it is found that GUT and TOE can not be refuted, and so verified as absolutely Right and Correct, then what also comes-to-light is exactly HOW language was pre-determined to become, and REVEAL 'pure logic', in its most SIMPLEST and EASIEST form.

I got these sentences from the internet, and they are all grammatically correct, will you tell me exactly what each of them means by using pure logic?

The chicken is ready to eat.
Visiting friends can be annoying.
I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

Did you read and understand my sentence when I said and wrote:
When language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then it becomes pure logic?

If yes, what are the right definitions for the words you wrote here, and then have those words been put in the right?

Oh, and by the way, what each, and all, of those sentences, (and each and all words as well), mean, whatever you want them to mean.

In this instance you are interpreting the word "could" to mean, "are you capable of", which is very often what it is meant to mean, but "could" is also conventionally accepted as the correct way to begin a polite request.

Once upon a time it was 'conventionally accepted' that the sun revolves around the sun, and that the Universe began, and created, and is expanding. But, as already known and proved True what is 'conventionally accepted' does not necessarily mean that this relates to what is actually True, Right, nor Correct.

You are comparing two things from different categories. The Earth revolving round the Sun is a provable, physical fact of nature, and would still be the case if we were unaware of it. The meaning of words is a matter of agreement between their users, and changes all the time.

I know, and it was never me who brought up what the word 'could' could mean.

For instance, to be gay meant something completely different 100 years ago to what it means today. We can change the meaning of any word simply by agreeing between ourselves to change it.

So, what is 'it' that is actually wrong or incorrect with me using the 'could' word in the way that it is 'conventionally, or very often, used and accepted'?

And, why did you add the 'polite' word in here? Did you think or hope that it would help and support you in someway?

[Harbal]

It DOES, when language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then what comes about, which, by the way, fits in perfectly with, and is just another part of, the plan is the GUT and TOE. That is; the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything. When this is expressed, with language, which is what is only needed, then what the actual absolute Truth is exactly is expressed, and when it is found that GUT and TOE can not be refuted, and so verified as absolutely Right and Correct, then what also comes-to-light is exactly HOW language was pre-determined to become, and REVEAL 'pure logic', in its most SIMPLEST and EASIEST form.

I got these sentences from the internet, and they are all grammatically correct, will you tell me exactly what each of them means by using pure logic?

The chicken is ready to eat.
Visiting friends can be annoying.
I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

Did you read and understand my sentence when I said and wrote:
When language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then it becomes pure logic?

If yes, what are the right definitions for the words you wrote here, and then have those words been put in the right?

Oh, and by the way, what each, and all, of those sentences, (and each and all words as well), mean, whatever you want them to mean.

In this instance you are interpreting the word "could" to mean, "are you capable of", which is very often what it is meant to mean, but "could" is also conventionally accepted as the correct way to begin a polite request.

Once upon a time it was 'conventionally accepted' that the sun revolves around the sun, and that the Universe began, and created, and is expanding. But, as already known and proved True what is 'conventionally accepted' does not necessarily mean that this relates to what is actually True, Right, nor Correct.

You are comparing two things from different categories. The Earth revolving round the Sun is a provable, physical fact of nature, and would still be the case if we were unaware of it. The meaning of words is a matter of agreement between their users, and changes all the time.

I know, and it was never me who brought up what the word 'could' could mean.

For instance, to be gay meant something completely different 100 years ago to what it means today. We can change the meaning of any word simply by agreeing between ourselves to change it.

So, what is 'it' that is actually wrong or incorrect with me using the 'could' word in the way that it is 'conventionally, or very often, used and accepted'?

And, why did you add the 'polite' word in here? Did you think or hope that it would help and support you in someway?

I'm sorry, Age, I can't respond to this, it just doesn't make sense. The questions you ask have no logical correspondence to what they refer to. Perhaps if you try to deal with one point at a time things will be clearer. What you have presented me with here is just a mess.

[Age]

Also, I suggest before you misunderstand me, nor anyone else, that you just obtain understanding through simple open questioning, for clarity and clarification, instead.

This is another theory of mind failure. There's an implication that when I've misunderstood you, I know I've misunderstood you.

But who ever implied this?

I do not recall ever implying this, and never ever thought this so I would never imply this.

And, are you aware that all 'theories' could always be False, Wrong, or Incorrect so any so-called 'theory of mind' would not be anything I would be using to gauge 'success' nor 'failure' on, especially considering the Fact of just how much of what is the 'mind' exactly, is in question.

But most misunderstandings are not like that. The person misunderstanding often has no idea that they've misinterpreted the words and thoughts of the other person.

This is very, very True. As seen and proved very thoroughly throughout this forum.

[Flannel Jesus]

Also, I suggest before you misunderstand me, nor anyone else, that you just obtain understanding through simple open questioning, for clarity and clarification, instead.

This is another theory of mind failure. There's an implication that when I've misunderstood you, I know I've misunderstood you.

But who ever implied this?

I do not recall ever implying this, and never ever thought this so I would never imply this.

You definitely did. These are your words.

"I suggest before you misunderstand me, nor anyone else, that you just obtain understanding through simple open questioning"

I could only take your suggestion, "before misunderstanding", if I knew I was misunderstanding something, or was going to. I can't really take your advice in the cases where I think I understand, but turn out to be mistaken.

[Age]

Your accusation has always been unwarranted, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but it is not like you will admit this, correct?

No, you are incorrect, because I will admit it.

But I never made a claim nor accusation about you here. So, how exactly could I be incorrect?

I just asked you a question, for clarification.

Since I made the accusation I have seen you admit to being wrong about something.

And if you had previously read everything that I have written here in this forum, then you would have seen where I have admitted to being wrong about things before you made this accussation of yours here, about me.

So, are you saying here that 'what you have done' is just a matter of injustice instead of being just absurd?

Not quite. I am saying I accused you unjustly, but there was no absurdity involved.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

The accusation would only have been absurd if the point I was trying to make with it had been totally untrue.

What is 'the point' that you were trying to make with the Wrong, False, and Incorrect accusation you made about me?

The fact is, you quite often insist that you are (irrefutably) right when it seems obvious to most that you are not.

The one who quite often insisted that they are (irrefutably) right, (about the earth revolving around the sun for example), when it seemed obvious to most that that one was not, also.

I suggest if absolutely any one thinks or believes that absolutely any thing I write or say is wrong, or false, or incorrect in any way whatsoever, then just point it out and show it. Contrary to popular belief I will admit my error, if and when I can see it.

Recognizing and seeing my OWN mistakes and/or errors can sometimes never be seen nor noticed, until others point them out and revel them to me. As evidenced and proved True within this post.

No matter how much some thing can be so absolutely obvious to others, and be so STUPID a mistake and error to one, the one is not always able to see just how STUPID they ARE, REALLY, until the others SHOW them. Again, as was just proved irrefutably True but just how STUPID I was and AM, and did NOT even notice the STUPID MISTAKE and ERROR I was making. Until just how STUPID it really was was REVEALED to me.

But this can also be reversed, as sometimes it is just one who can see and recognize the obvious stupid mistakes and errors that others are making, even if the others are each and EVERY one else.

Again as already proved True by the sun/earth relationship example.

I have, however, since I made that accusation, changed my mind about you motivation. I no longer think you do it dishonestly; I now believe that it is because you genuinely believe you are right.

1. I do not believe absolutely any thing, and how many times do I have to say this before it is BELIEVED?

2. UNTIL I am SHOWN that what I am saying is Wrong, then it remains right, in my view, or from my perspective. I have also never said that my views are Right, but I do have a right to express the views that I have.

3. It is not like what I say and write here is claiming that a 'person' created the WHOLE Universe, after all.

4. So, if absolutely any thing I say or write does not appear right, then just say so, and say why. Then we can discuss 'that', point of view.

[Age]

A lot.

Will you provide the actual difference?

Maybe.

Okay, thank you for clarifying this with me.

[Age]

I got these sentences from the internet, and they are all grammatically correct, will you tell me exactly what each of them means by using pure logic?

The chicken is ready to eat.
Visiting friends can be annoying.
I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

Did you read and understand my sentence when I said and wrote:
When language is put in the right order, with the right definitions being used, then it becomes pure logic?

If yes, what are the right definitions for the words you wrote here, and then have those words been put in the right?

Oh, and by the way, what each, and all, of those sentences, (and each and all words as well), mean, whatever you want them to mean.



You are comparing two things from different categories. The Earth revolving round the Sun is a provable, physical fact of nature, and would still be the case if we were unaware of it. The meaning of words is a matter of agreement between their users, and changes all the time.

I know, and it was never me who brought up what the word 'could' could mean.

For instance, to be gay meant something completely different 100 years ago to what it means today. We can change the meaning of any word simply by agreeing between ourselves to change it.

So, what is 'it' that is actually wrong or incorrect with me using the 'could' word in the way that it is 'conventionally, or very often, used and accepted'?

And, why did you add the 'polite' word in here? Did you think or hope that it would help and support you in someway?

I'm sorry, Age, I can't respond to this, it just doesn't make sense.

And while you continue to NEVER seek out ANY clarification that WILL NEVER make sense, to you.

The questions you ask have no logical correspondence to what they refer to.

They do.

But, just NOT to you.

Perhaps if you try to deal with one point at a time things will be clearer. What you have presented me with here is just a mess.

You still present your accusations or claims in Truly False ways.

What I have presented here is not a mess, to me. Which is a True and irrefutable Fact. And, things are crystal clear already, to me. Which, again, is another Truly irrefutable Fact.

Which makes what you say and claim here False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

But, you could have made them irrefutable True Facts, as well, if you had just added the two words, which I spoke of BEFORE.

See when language and words are used and placed in the 'right order', with the 'right definitions', then 'pure logic' just 'falls into place', as some might.

[Age]

This is another theory of mind failure. There's an implication that when I've misunderstood you, I know I've misunderstood you.

But who ever implied this?

I do not recall ever implying this, and never ever thought this so I would never imply this.

You definitely did. These are your words.

"I suggest before you misunderstand me, nor anyone else, that you just obtain understanding through simple open questioning"

I could only take your suggestion, "before misunderstanding", if I knew I was misunderstanding something, or was going to.

But that is not what I meant.

So, your claim here is Wrong, again also.

See, you could of taken the OTHER suggestion. You know, the one that I ACTUALLY MEANT, but which you have still not yet grasped, and understood.

I can't really take your advice in the cases where I think I understand, but turn out to be mistaken.

But, and just as I was saying, and meaning, if you gain clarification, and thus clarity FIRST, then you would NEVER obtain misunderstanding, AT ALL.

[Harbal]

Your accusation has always been unwarranted, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but it is not like you will admit this, correct?

No, you are incorrect, because I will admit it.

But I never made a claim nor accusation about you here. So, how exactly could I be incorrect?

This is the claim you made: "but it is not like you will admit this, correct?"

I did admit it, so your claim is incorrect.

If there is anything else you want to take issue with you can put that single issue in a single post and I will respond to it, but I am not going to carry on with trying to deal with a page full of mixed up messiness all in one go. I'm not running away from you, I am simply trying to preserve my will to carry on living.

[Age]

No, you are incorrect, because I will admit it.

But I never made a claim nor accusation about you here. So, how exactly could I be incorrect?

This is the claim you made: "but it is not like you will admit this, correct?"

Why do my questions posed, and asked, for clarification get quite often completely overlooked and presumed as being claims instead?

Is it because some people "see" a rhetorical question when really there is none?

I have already expressed that whenever I put a question mark at the end of a sentence this is a question being posed and asked for clarification?

But maybe just like when I see a sentence with a question mark, and it is not a statement nor claim being made, then I just about always see and take that question as being posed and asked for clarification. However, I am now realizing some of them may have actually been meant to be rhetorical questions ONLY instead. Like the one in the opening post here. And maybe far, far more rhetorical questions are posed in this forum instead of people actually just posing asking questions to gain more clarity, and thus more understanding also.

Since people in this forum do spend far more time trying to fight for, or defend, their already gained points of views and opinions, then may just about all of the questions they put forward are just rhetorical questions, and just being used as another way of trying to put their own beliefs and views out here.

By the way, because I am so slow and do not have the ability to know 100% for sure the thoughts in another head, what is your answer to your rhetorical question in the opening post here?

I did admit it, so your claim is incorrect.

But I never made a claim here. I just posed a Truly open question to you, just seeking your clarification. As can be clearly seen by the actual words I used in that question and by the way I wrote and used those words, in the placement of those words.

If there is anything else you want to take issue with you can put that single issue in a single post and I will respond to it, but I am not going to carry on with trying to deal with a page full of mixed up messiness all in one go.

But there is absolutely no so-called messiness here. Well not to me, anyway. But then again we do look at and see things very differently, correct?

Being able to follow all of this and being able to understand what is going on and things here is not messy to me at all.

As long as everyone is Truly honest and open here, then all things just follow on Naturally very simple and easy, and, by the way, then the absolute and IRREFUTABLE Truth just comes about and is revealed.

I'm not running away from you, I am simply trying to preserve my will to carry on living.

I know you are not running away from me, now.

And, if you end up ending your own life, then would that all be because of 'me', thus all my fault also, correct?

[Harbal]

And, if you end up ending your own life, then would that all be because of 'me', thus all my fault also, correct?

I think you and I need to take a break from each other.

[Age]

And, if you end up ending your own life, then would that all be because of 'me', thus all my fault also, correct?

I think you and I need to take a break from each other.

I do not need to take a break, at all, but if you feel that you need to take a break, then that is Truly understandable.