Bots

[Iwannaplato]

I am trying to work out what you mean by 'anger' here first.

To me 'anger' can be absolutely lovely and absolutely horrible, and anywhere in between.

Great and I agree.

But until I gain CLARITY as to what you are referring to here EXACTLY, I can NOT answer your question here Honestly.

That seems like an honest answer and given that you present such an extreme range - from absolutely lovely to absolutely horrible - I think we may not be far from each other.

What does the word 'anger' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

I don't know if you know Wittgenstein and his ideas about meaning being use, rather than, say, a hard definition, and this relates to why I hesitate to define the word 'anger' and that is why I asked you if you disagreed. If I try to be exact, as you request, I may leave out certain things that I would consider anger and I might seem to include things I don't. In this not simple set of 'things' that I might call anger, there can be 'things' that look very different and are experienced as different by the person expressing and by others near enough to experience it from the outside.

I do think requesting definitions is often the start of a needed step in a conversation, but here I think it may be better to work with an example, as you request below.

And, in what experience have you had where 'anger' was 'lovely'?

An example that I hope many can agree with where I find anger lovely is where someone gets angry at someone they love for not treating themselves well. I have experienced this on both sides, but an example was where I was pushing myself too hard around a work situation, clearly judging myself in ways that were, at least to my wife, unfair. She had seen this pattern a number of times over a not too long stretch of time and, yes, got angry. My immediate reaction was not pleasant. I didn't understand why she was angry just notice the emotion mainly. Then I realized that she didn't want me to mistreat me. And her anger came just as it might at someone else who was hurting me. Of course, she had said some of her thinking about my self-treatment before this moment, but those words, more calmly expressed, had not had much effect.

I think there can be many other situations, not just where one is protecting, in some way, a person from harm where anger can be just lovely, but further that there are many other situations where others might be less likely to agree.

Have you an example of anger that, at least one the surface, seems different from what I described above, but nevertheless you consider lovely?

[Age]

I am trying to work out what you mean by 'anger' here first.

To me 'anger' can be absolutely lovely and absolutely horrible, and anywhere in between.

Great and I agree.

But until I gain CLARITY as to what you are referring to here EXACTLY, I can NOT answer your question here Honestly.

That seems like an honest answer

It is an honest answer, but it might not be Honest in respect to what you were actually meaning here.

and given that you present such an extreme range - from absolutely lovely to absolutely horrible - I think we may not be far from each other.

We may well not be. But, again, until CLARITY is OBTAINED, we will NEVER KNOW, for sure.

See, I still think you might still be thinking of this in a completely different way than I am.

What does the word 'anger' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

I don't know if you know Wittgenstein and his ideas about meaning being use, rather than, say, a hard definition,

I have NO idea about any "wittgenstein" thing, nor of its ideas, but I USE the 'use' word in capital letters, sometimes, to emphasize that the way I USE words, and THEIR meanings, might not be FULLY understood, until later on, and then what WILL BECOME MUCH CLEAR is that I had ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTED specific words, for specific reasons, and/or specific meanings, PREVIOUSLY.

and this relates to why I hesitate to define the word 'anger' and that is why I asked you if you disagreed.

It would have been helpful if you had mentioned this earlier.

I also noticed that I was meant to add the 'here' word in my question above, but which I very neglectfully forgot to add.

If I try to be exact, as you request, I may leave out certain things that I would consider anger and I might seem to include things I don't. In this not simple set of 'things' that I might call anger, there can be 'things' that look very different and are experienced as different by the person expressing and by others near enough to experience it from the outside.

I do think requesting definitions is often the start of a needed step in a conversation, but here I think it may be better to work with an example, as you request below.

And, in what experience have you had where 'anger' was 'lovely'?

An example that I hope many can agree with where I find anger lovely is where someone gets angry at someone they love for not treating themselves well. I have experienced this on both sides, but an example was where I was pushing myself too hard around a work situation, clearly judging myself in ways that were, at least to my wife, unfair. She had seen this pattern a number of times over a not too long stretch of time and, yes, got angry. My immediate reaction was not pleasant. I didn't understand why she was angry just notice the emotion mainly. Then I realized that she didn't want me to mistreat me. And her anger came just as it might at someone else who was hurting me. Of course, she had said some of her thinking about my self-treatment before this moment, but those words, more calmly expressed, had not had much effect.

I think there can be many other situations, not just where one is protecting, in some way, a person from harm where anger can be just lovely, but further that there are many other situations where others might be less likely to agree.

Have you an example of anger that, at least one the surface, seems different from what I described above, but nevertheless you consider lovely?

Now that you have cleared things up here somewhat, I NEVER see 'anger' that way as being 'lovely'.

See, I see 'anger' being 'lovely' in that it is just another one of the 450 or so other emotions, which when 'felt' is A SIGN that some thing needs to be CHANGED. So, 'feeling' 'anger' can be 'lovely', as that feeling can trigger into 'doing things'.

However, to me, SHOWING 'anger' in ANY form AT ALL is NOT 'lovely', in ANY WAY.

Oh, and by the way, what I gathered from the above is that IF you had just LISTENED TO, and HEARD, 'your' wife, from the outset, then 'your' wife would NOT have GOT 'angry', NOR SHOWN 'anger'.

Do you, REALLY, need "others" around you to GET angry or SHOW anger BEFORE you will LISTEN and HEAR them?

[Belinda]

In the example of anger that Iwannaplato gave, Mrs. Iwannaplato, as is normal and proper, experienced fear. Her response may have been diffused anxiety, but she is intelligent enough to attribute her fear specifically to Iwannaplato's attitude that was harming him. Her fear had turned into anger at the point where she could attribute the fear to certain events. Her anger became lovely when she used her anger in the service of love.

[Iwannaplato]

Now that you have cleared things up here somewhat, I NEVER see 'anger' that way as being 'lovely'.

See, I see 'anger' being 'lovely' in that it is just another one of the 450 or so other emotions, which when 'felt' is A SIGN that some thing needs to be CHANGED.

Exactly. My wife felt something needed to be changed. And I did too.

So, 'feeling' 'anger' can be 'lovely', as that feeling can trigger into 'doing things'.

Well, in this case it got me to stop doing something, and that was a good change.

However, to me, SHOWING 'anger' in ANY form AT ALL is NOT 'lovely', in ANY WAY.

I certainly believe that you experience it that way. I take your word for it. But you are incorrect when you generalize. It was lovely for me. Should she have kept her feelings out of her voice and facial expression? If so, why is that? It was the expression of her anger that helped me let go of a pattern. Is it true...you don't see the facial expression and voice tone as lovely and you judge them as negative? Should we suppress the expression of feelings you do consider lovely to feel? How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely? As a rule? And aren't feelings also their expression? Why does this natural connection need to be suppressed? (and I certainly understand that if someone wants to hit someone from rage that's a problem, though of course they are probably denying fear in most instances of this. It's that you have it, it seems, as a rule, that anger should not be shown.) Anger has a set of physiological facets. These are present even when people suppress, try to hide, repress the expression. To a lesser degree, but they are present, especially for those who have long paid attention. Are those facets of the physiology of anger that show the emotion bad, but the ones that are less easy to see/hear...those can be lovely? How and I suppose why did you decide that if you did?

Oh, and by the way, what I gathered from the above is that IF you had just LISTENED TO, and HEARD, 'your' wife, from the outset, then 'your' wife would NOT have GOT 'angry', NOR SHOWN 'anger'.

That's not relevant to the issue of whether it was lovely or not. It was lovely for me.

Do you, REALLY, need "others" around you to GET angry or SHOW anger BEFORE you will LISTEN and HEAR them?

I listen and hear. But some habits run deep. As you have reminded me time after time, I am human.

So, what an example of an instance when you or someone you were in the company of got angry and you thought it was absolutely lovely?

So, does this all mean you never express anger here? you may feel it in response to posts here, but you would not show it? Or if you did show it, you would feel this is unlovely of you?

[Iwannaplato]

In the example of anger that Iwannaplato gave, Mrs. Iwannaplato, as is normal and proper, experienced fear. Her response may have been diffused anxiety, but she is intelligent enough to attribute her fear specifically to Iwannaplato's attitude that was harming him. Her fear had turned into anger at the point where she could attribute the fear to certain events. Her anger became lovely when she used her anger in the service of love.

Thank you, yes.

[Age]

Now that you have cleared things up here somewhat, I NEVER see 'anger' that way as being 'lovely'.

See, I see 'anger' being 'lovely' in that it is just another one of the 450 or so other emotions, which when 'felt' is A SIGN that some thing needs to be CHANGED.

Exactly. My wife felt something needed to be changed. And I did too.

So, 'feeling' 'anger' can be 'lovely', as that feeling can trigger into 'doing things'.

Well, in this case it got me to stop doing something, and that was a good change.

However, to me, SHOWING 'anger' in ANY form AT ALL is NOT 'lovely', in ANY WAY.

I certainly believe that you experience it that way. I take your word for it. But you are incorrect when you generalize.

WHEN have I EVER, supposedly and allegedly, GENERALIZED.

I SPECIFICALLY USED the WORDS, 'to me', to EMPHASIZE the very Fact that THIS VIEW is NOT GENERALIZED AT ALL and is ONLY 'to me'.

How much MORE SPECIFIC do I have WRITE and USE MY WORDS so that these types of Wrong ASSUMPTIONS are NOT made ANY MORE into the future?

It was lovely for me.

If you find 'your' wife BEING ANGRY, AT you, and/or SHOWING ANGER, TOWARDS you, IS 'lovely', FOR you, then GREAT.

From what I have observed MOST people do NOT like "others" BEING ANGRY, and, on MOST occasions, they do NOT find 'ANGRY PEOPLE' 'lovely' AT ALL.

But, if you find an 'ANGRY WIFE' a 'lovely experience', for you, then, by all means, ENJOY those times.

I CERTAINLY ACCEPT that you SAY and might well BELIEVE that you experience an 'ANGRY WIFE' that way. But you are incorrect when you generalize 'things' that are NOT true.

Should she have kept her feelings out of her voice and facial expression?

That all depends.

If so, why is that?

You appear to be MISSING THE POINT that I was making earlier.

IF you HAD LISTENED TO 'your' wife in the FIRST PLACE, then 'your' wife would NEVER had HAD TO express the ANGRY 'feelings' WITHIN through voice and facial expression.

Can you UNDERSTAND 'this' this time?

It was the expression of her anger that helped me let go of a pattern.

AND, it was ONLY you NOT LISTENING to 'your' wife, from the outset, WHY 'your' wife HAD TO EXPRESS 'ANGER'.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now, that IF you LISTENED TO 'your' wife, from the beginning, then 'ANGRY' 'feelings or emotions' would NOT have ARISEN WITHIN 'that body', which were THEN EXPRESSED through, and SHOWN with, 'that body'.

Are you YET AWARE that the 'ANGRY' 'feelings' WITHIN 'your' wife ONLY AROSE BECAUSE 'you' were NOT LISTENING TO what was BEING SAID. 'ANGRY' 'feelings' would have NEVER ROSE UP IF you had JUST BEEN LISTENING, and HEARING.

Is it true...you don't see the facial expression and voice tone as lovely and you judge them as negative?

Your use of the 'don't' word here makes it harder to answer this question Honestly, especially considering how you have added the last bit of your question onto the rest here.

1. I do NOT 'judge' 'things' as being 'negative' NOR 'positive' here.

2. What I do see is that facial expressions and/or voice tones of 'ANGER' would NOT ARISE if 'you', adult human beings, had JUST been LISTENING from the beginning. And, when I say, 'LISTENING', I MEAN Truly LISTENING, which involves ACTUALLY HEARING what is being SAID, as well as what is being MEANT.

Should we suppress the expression of feelings you do consider lovely to feel?

See it is this type of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, which you are DOING HERE, BEFORE you GAINED and OBTAINED ACTUAL CLARITY WHY you SO FAR ASTRAY, in the Wrong DIRECTION, and OFF TOPIC as well.

AGAIN, you are, LITERALLY, SHOWING and PROVING how you do NOT LISTEN TO what IS being SAID, and MEANT, and WHY in some feelings of 'ANGER' ARISE.

Would you like me to EXPRESS and SHOW 'ANGER' here? Is this, REALLY, what you WANT and the ONLY way that you even START to LISTEN and HEAR what "others" are ACTUALLY MEANING in what they ARE ACTUALLY SAYING TO you?

How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

You have REALLY NOT LISTENED TO what I HAVE BEEN SAYING, and MEANING here.

How some thing that is 'lovely', like when the feeling of 'ANGER', and thus A SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING, arises WITHIN, becomes 'unlovely' would be liek, for example, when the, 'lovely', feeling of 'ANGER', which OBVIOUSLY DOES ARISE within 'your' wife when you are NOT LISTENING to 'her', (which might be on far more occasions than reported here), becomes 'unlovely', would be like when 'your' wife has easy access to a gun or a knife and SHOOTS or KNIFES you TO DEATH.

This is WHEN the 'lovely' SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING in LIFE becomes 'unlovely', when expressed.

Are you YET HEARING, and UNDERSTANDING, 'me', and 'this' here now?

As a rule?

As JUST EXPLAINED.

And aren't feelings also their expression?

INTERNAL 'feelings' OR 'emotions' ARE JUST 'emotions'. 'Feelings' are NOT the so-called phrase, 'their expression'.

LOOK, ALL 'emotions' are just 'felt', internally, and thus they ARE 'internal feelings'. These 'internal feelings' or 'emotions' come from, and arise, through the five senses of the body, namely, sight, hearing, feelings (nerve endings), smelling, and/or tasting. And, like the through the 'nerve endings' 'feelings' are 'felt' WITHIN. But ALL of these 'feelings' are JUST 'feelings'. Absolutely NONE of these INTERNAL 'feelings' HAVE TO BE 'expressed' EXTERNALLY through bodily expressions NOR behaviors and misbehavior.

But IF you do NOTICE that there are 'bodily expressions' of 'ANGER', and/or 'FRUSTRATION', for example, on say 'your' wife's 'face', then this could be BECAUSE of what you have been DOING or maybe have NOT been DOING, like, for example, NOT LISTENING TO 'her' and to WHAT 'she' HAS BEEN SAYING and TELLING you.

Why does this natural connection need to be suppressed?

Absolutely NO one here has SAID that the natural connection needs to be suppressed.

You have ONLY ARRIVED at this VERY Wrong and VERY STUPID CONCLUSION BECAUSE of your previously VERY Wrong and VERY STUPID ASSUMPTIONS that you have been MAKING here. Which, by the way, you have been CONSTANTLY DOING throughout this thread, and probably a VERY GOOD SIGN of WHY 'your' wife FEELS, and GETS, 'ANGRY' with you.

Oh, and by the way, one can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY EXPRESS, the natural connection, JUST, WITH and THROUGH the words, 'I feel angry, because ...'. And, expressing 'this way' will NOT cause ANY of what you would call 'negative consequences'.

However, and unfortunately, if one has a common mis/behavior of NOT LISTENING, then just SAYING and EXPRESSING those words only may NOT work ON nor FOR those types of people, which, coincidentally, leads to people, like 'your' wife', ending up FEELING MORE 'ANGRY', and who THEN HAVE TO EXPRESS in DIFFERENT WAYS, UNTIL people like 'you', "iwannaplato" START LISTENING.

Which, by the way, can be a VERY SLOW, and a VERY FRUSTRATING FEELING process. Which I FEEL for 'YOUR' wife.

(and I certainly understand that if someone wants to hit someone from rage that's a problem, though of course they are probably denying fear in most instances of this. It's that you have it, it seems, as a rule, that anger should not be shown.)

1. I NEVER think NOR say what 'you', "another", SHOULD DO or SHOULD NOT DO.

2. I live by one 'rule', or better, worded one 'lore' that I live by. I have NO 'rules' NOR 'laws' for "others".

3. 'Anger' can be SHOWN in ANY way that one thinks or feels that 'it' 'should' be SHOWN. 'you' are OLD ENOUGH to KNOW what is Right and BEST, correct?

4. I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT and GAIN and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even BEGIN to PRESUME 'things'. That way you will NOT express these Truly Wrong and ABSURD, to me, CONCLUSIONS that you have and/or HOLD.

Anger has a set of physiological facets. These are present even when people suppress, try to hide, repress the expression. To a lesser degree, but they are present, especially for those who have long paid attention. Are those facets of the physiology of anger that show the emotion bad, but the ones that are less easy to see/hear...those can be lovely?

Well considering the Fact that this is NOTHING that I have thought, let alone SAID, and EXPRESSED, WHY do you consider you CAME TO and ARRIVED AT 'this CONCLUSION'?

Also, it is EXTREMELY and SIMPLY to JUST EXPRESS ALL 'emotions' through WORDS, ALONE.

IF, however, "others" are LISTENING and HEARING, and/or CARING is a WHOLE OTHER MATTER.

How and I suppose why did you decide that if you did?

Have you REALLY NOT YET NOTICED just HOW OFTEN you make YOUR QUESTIONS based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and that THOSE ASSUMPTIONS could be completely and utterly False, Wrong, or Incorrect, from the outset?

Oh, and by the way, what I gathered from the above is that IF you had just LISTENED TO, and HEARD, 'your' wife, from the outset, then 'your' wife would NOT have GOT 'angry', NOR SHOWN 'anger'.

That's not relevant to the issue of whether it was lovely or not.

LOL If this is, supposedly, NOT 'relevant', to you, then so be it.

Do you WANT us to just IGNORE ALL of it?

If yes, then there is NO wonder WHY 'your' wife GETS, SHOWS, and EXPRESSES 'ANGER', to you.

It was lovely for me.

IF you SEE "others" EXPRESSING 'their ANGER', TO you, as 'lovely', then GREAT.

The MORE 'we' SHOW and EXPRESS 'our ANGER', TO you, then the MORE 'lovely' you WILL FIND these INTERACTIONS, correct?

Do you, REALLY, need "others" around you to GET angry or SHOW anger BEFORE you will LISTEN and HEAR them?

I listen and hear.

LOL

You have just gone through a WHOLE THREAD of SHOWING and PROVING OTHERWISE.

You are CLEARLY EXPRESSING EXACTLY HOW you do NOT LISTEN, and HEAR.

And this is WITHOUT even LOOKING BACK throughout our other interactions through this forum.

But some habits run deep.

VERY True.

If children are NOT LISTENED TO, and HEARD, as children, then they do NOT LEARN HOW and WHY LISTENING and HEARING to "others" and even to "ones" 'self' is SO IMPORTANT in Life, and then habit of NOT LISTENING and HEARING can CARRY ON, while RUNNING VERY DEEP, as you just EXPRESSED and POINTED OUT.

As you have reminded me time after time, I am human.

But I have NEVER EVER SAID this EVEN ONCE.

But you do have a HABIT of NOT LISTENING.

And, for FURTHER PROOF of 'this' 'we' could ASK 'your' wife, correct? Or, do you think or BELIEVE that 'she' would say otherwise?

So, what an example of an instance when you or someone you were in the company of got angry and you thought it was absolutely lovely?

WHY 'they' just TELL ME in WORDS, 'I feel 'angry', because of ...'.

And, by the way, it is USUALLY BECAUSE of 'what i have done'.

Which, a LOT of the time, BEFORE, was also for NOT LISTENING and NOT HEARING what "others" were ACTUALLY MEANING, in what they were ACTUALLY SAYING.

But I have since then LEARNED HOW TO HEAR, and LISTEN TO, what is BEING MEANT in what is BEING SAID.

So, does this all mean you never express anger here?

LOL

HERE is a GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW from just one Wrong PRESUMPTION, at the outset, ALL FOLLOWING PRESUMPTIONS can lead to one absolutely VERY False, Wrong and/or Incorrect CONCLUSION.

IF, for example, I were to say, 'I feel anger here', then I have just EXPRESSED 'anger' here.

Also, if, for example, IF I were to say, 'I feel frustration here', then there can also be the 'emotion' of 'anger' among that 'frustration' 'feeling/emotion', but I may NOT express the 'anger' emotion, NOR ANY of the other 450 emotions, always, nor at any particular time or moment.

you may feel it in response to posts here, but you would not show it?

I USUALLY do NOT write, 'I feel 'anger' because of (... the way you write or because of the way you are NOT LISTENING', for example), and if I recall correctly I have NEVER said, 'I feel 'angry', here in this forum, but, again if I recall correctly, I have said some thing about feeling 'frustration' on an occasion or two here.

Or if you did show it, you would feel this is unlovely of you?

Well considering that there are ONLY WORDS being SHOWED, and EXPRESSED, here, in this forum, and the WORDS, EXPRESSED, are of ABSOLUTE Truth, then this, to me, could NEVER be so-called 'unlovely'. Unless, OF COURSE, one SAID and EXPRESSED that they were GOING TO do some 'thing', so-called 'unlovely', then this THREAT, expressed ANGRILY, would be 'unlovely'.

And, on further thought, there might be other cases where USING WRITTEN WORDS to EXPRESS 'ANGRILY', then these might be so-called 'unlovely' AS WELL.

[Age]

In the example of anger that Iwannaplato gave, Mrs. Iwannaplato, as is normal and proper, experienced fear. Her response may have been diffused anxiety, but she is intelligent enough to attribute her fear specifically to Iwannaplato's attitude that was harming him. Her fear had turned into anger at the point where she could attribute the fear to certain events. Her anger became lovely when she used her anger in the service of love.

Thank you, yes.

And, here we have A PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY SO MUCH 'anger' was OPENLY EXPRESSED through MISBEHAVING.

The peoples of these times ACTUALLY BELIEVED that they had "self-justified" when it was all right to EXPRESS and SHOW 'anger', through MISBEHAVIOR.

They would just "justify", to "themselves", ONLY that it was NOT a 'misbehavior' but was actually a "GOOD" or "Right" behavior.

If ANY one of them WANTED to ACTUALLY DELVE into 'this' DEEPER, then they ALSO would have LEARNED and SEEN otherwise. But 'they' WERE "happy" WITH and IN their OWN attempts at "self-justification". Which was ANOTHER 'thing' that ALLOWED 'them' to continue on as 'they' WERE and to NOT SEEK CHANGE, for the better.

Those ones REALLY did BELIEVE that they WERE doing THE BEST that they could. Which is Truly LAUGHABLE when 'we' LOOK BACK and SEE what they WERE ACTUALLY DOING, and SAYING.

[Lacewing]

It seems OK for Age to assume and generalize and judge and not take time to feel into something new or possibly new, but it is not ok for others according to Age.

Ah, well, habits are hard to break it seems for you. It was useful for me to try to bridge, and at the same time I hoped there would be a sign that it would actually be felt into, considered.

Several people (myself included in the past) have tried to build a bridge of communication/understanding with Age, but he nearly always responds with the childish shouty letters and distorted projections which are more trouble than they're worth to straighten out. Even when that's pointed out to him, he goes right back to the same habit of telling everyone how wrong they are about just about everything, while claiming what he knows about just about everything.

In the meantime, any insights he comes up with are no more significant than those of other forum posters.

It's disappointing, but not that much.

Right. Like you, I wish him well... I just don't want to deal with all that he generates, as he seems to generate far more than he sees/hears from others.

[Iwannaplato]

WHEN have I EVER, supposedly and allegedly, GENERALIZED.

You didn't generalize that all people react as you do. You generalized that to you it is always not lovely regardless of context....

However, to me, SHOWING 'anger' in ANY form AT ALL is NOT 'lovely', in ANY WAY.

If you find 'your' wife BEING ANGRY, AT you, and/or SHOWING ANGER, TOWARDS you, IS 'lovely', FOR you, then GREAT.

Great.

From what I have observed MOST people do NOT like "others" BEING ANGRY, and, on MOST occasions, they do NOT find 'ANGRY PEOPLE' 'lovely' AT ALL.

I think it is sad to me that that would be a rule for someone. But humans are diverse. If that is how they want to live, I hope they manage to create a way to live that.

I CERTAINLY ACCEPT that you SAY and might well BELIEVE that you experience an 'ANGRY WIFE' that way. But you are incorrect when you generalize 'things' that are NOT true.

I said anger can be lovely. I know others who are in relationships with friends and family members who have similar reactions to me, often in longer term intimate relations. So, I stand by my use of the word 'can'.

If this is something you want to avoid or find unlovely in all cases, then I hope you manage to avoid it, or not experience it.

Should she have kept her feelings out of her voice and facial expression?

That all depends.

On? And since you say, it depends, that implies, I think that perhaps she should have. So, what would have made it such that she should have kept her feelings out of her face, given how I described the situation?

If so, why is that?

You appear to be MISSING THE POINT that I was making earlier.

IF you HAD LISTENED TO 'your' wife in the FIRST PLACE, then 'your' wife would NEVER had HAD TO express the ANGRY 'feelings' WITHIN through voice and facial expression.

I didn't miss that point. There we were in that situation, where I had, yes, listened, but my habit in relation to myself had not changed. That was the situation. That was reality. Now you are talking about what I should have done before that situation. Given the situation, I think it is lovely that she expressed her anger.

Can you UNDERSTAND 'this' this time?

I understood the first time. But it is not relevant, as far as my wife showing her emotions, in that situations. She made the right choice for us in that situation.

It was the expression of her anger that helped me let go of a pattern.

AND, it was ONLY you NOT LISTENING to 'your' wife, from the outset, WHY 'your' wife HAD TO EXPRESS 'ANGER'.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now, that IF you LISTENED TO 'your' wife, from the beginning, then 'ANGRY' 'feelings or emotions' would NOT have ARISEN WITHIN 'that body', which were THEN EXPRESSED through, and SHOWN with, 'that body'.

Yes, but that was not the situation. And we are talking about whether her showing her emotions was lovely or not. Did she make the right choice in showing them? Yes.

Did you understand this time?

Are you YET AWARE that the 'ANGRY' 'feelings' WITHIN 'your' wife ONLY AROSE BECAUSE 'you' were NOT LISTENING TO what was BEING SAID. 'ANGRY' 'feelings' would have NEVER ROSE UP IF you had JUST BEEN LISTENING, and HEARING.

It was part of MY story, which you read, where I implied that and my words would not have made sense otherwise. Yes, I understood.

Was it wrong for her to show her emotions, was it unlovely to you that she showed them? Would you suggest to her that if she is in a similar situation she should not show them?

Because here in the real world, in manifestation, not everything is perfect. Habits have formed. People make mistakes.

We, out here, have to deal with imperfect situastions. It was lovely how she dealt with it.

Here you seem focused on blame. If you are not blaming me for a less than perfect situation, then I suggest that you consider your language yet again, because it seems like shifting to focus on what I should have done before the situation is not relevant to whether my wife should or should not have shown her anger or whether it was lovely or not....

And that was the context for our discussion. I said anger could be lovely and you wanted to know why, given, it seemed that I thought love could be lovely.

Is it true...you don't see the facial expression and voice tone as lovely and you judge them as negative?

1. I do NOT 'judge' 'things' as being 'negative' NOR 'positive' here.

Then your communication is much more misleading than even I realized. You've said that the fault is yours in communication. I suggest this is one area you are communiating poorly.

2. What I do see is that facial expressions and/or voice tones of 'ANGER' would NOT ARISE if 'you', adult human beings, had JUST been LISTENING from the beginning. And, when I say, 'LISTENING', I MEAN Truly LISTENING, which involves ACTUALLY HEARING what is being SAID, as well as what is being MEANT.

And here we are in a world that is not perfect and we have habits and make mistakes and worse. In that world I find anger can be lovely, though yes, it can also be unlovely, as I said earlier.

Should we suppress the expression of feelings you do consider lovely to feel?

See it is this type of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, which you are DOING HERE, BEFORE you GAINED and OBTAINED ACTUAL CLARITY WHY you SO FAR ASTRAY, in the Wrong DIRECTION, and OFF TOPIC as well.

I asked a question.

AGAIN, you are, LITERALLY, SHOWING and PROVING how you do NOT LISTEN TO what IS being SAID, and MEANT, and WHY in some feelings of 'ANGER' ARISE.

I asked a question. Should I assume like you just did in relation to me that you are not listening when you don't notice things I have said?

How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

You have REALLY NOT LISTENED TO what I HAVE BEEN SAYING, and MEANING here.

I asked a question.

How some thing that is 'lovely', like when the feeling of 'ANGER', and thus A SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING, arises WITHIN, becomes 'unlovely' would be liek, for example, when the, 'lovely', feeling of 'ANGER', which OBVIOUSLY DOES ARISE within 'your' wife when you are NOT LISTENING to 'her', (which might be on far more occasions than reported here), becomes 'unlovely', would be like when 'your' wife has easy access to a gun or a knife and SHOOTS or KNIFES you TO DEATH.

See, here you are not listening to me. I said several times 'as a rule.' That you had said the emotion of anger is as a rule unlovely to you when it is expressed. What do you do, you find a situation of extreme violence, even though in my post I mention that hitting would be a problem, and here you jump to a gun or knife use to kill me. I clearly said that I did not always find it lovely. Clearly. And agreed with you when you said it. Is this PROOF, as you say later in this post, that you regularly don't listen. My goodness, it might be good if you met someone exactly like you.

This is WHEN the 'lovely' SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING in LIFE becomes 'unlovely', when expressed.

YOU SAID YOU THINK IT IS NOT LOVELY IN ANY SITUATION.

Do you see how you did not listen, twisted by implication what I said`?

?

Are you YET HEARING, and UNDERSTANDING, 'me', and 'this' here now?

Oh, I hear you Age. Do you hear yourself?

As a rule?

As JUST EXPLAINED.

And aren't feelings also their expression?

INTERNAL 'feelings' OR 'emotions' ARE JUST 'emotions'. 'Feelings' are NOT the so-called phrase, 'their expression'.

The phrase was ALSO their expression.

LOOK, ALL 'emotions' are just 'felt', internally,

No, not just. Emotions are complicated physical processes that affect breathing facial expression voice tone if the person is speaking and more.

Why does this natural connection need to be suppressed?

Absolutely NO one here has SAID that the natural connection needs to be suppressed.

Well that's the way to stop what is felt being shown, though it cannot be fully successful given emotional effects on unconscious processes. Many people do not want to notice emotions because of all the judgment out there, so suppression can be successful in many instances, but this is because of denial and avoidance.

Oh, and by the way, one can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY EXPRESS, the natural connection, JUST, WITH and THROUGH the words, 'I feel angry, because ...'. And, expressing 'this way' will NOT cause ANY of what you would call 'negative consequences'.

LOL.

Which, by the way, can be a VERY SLOW, and a VERY FRUSTRATING FEELING process. Which I FEEL for 'YOUR' wife.

Oh, I know how she felt on that day. I've even met people who as a rule defend their habits. Some focus on the other person all the time. So if one reports what one is experiencing about them, they focus on the person pointing this out. It could be through a mass of questions, many of which need not be asked. They change the focus to something not relevant. When their ego is on the line, they cannot admit fault. It can even happen online, where it is much easier to pretend one is not having certain reactions. Or pretend one is not judging. Or pretend that they way their are behaving online is not showing their rage or fear.

A long time ago I might have wanted them to admit what was going on. It would be much easier in real life where they body language would give away the ongoing lie. But here online people can more easily hide, if not as completely as they seem to think, some specific individuals. But this is not a task I give myself anymore. Perhaps it will happen. I am not ruling out that in an interaction with me or someone else, they may notice how they are contradicting themselves or how angry they are and are showing it. But it is not a task I give myself.

1. I NEVER think NOR say what 'you', "another", SHOULD DO or SHOULD NOT DO.

2. I live by one 'rule', or better, worded one 'lore' that I live by. I have NO 'rules' NOR 'laws' for "others".

3. 'Anger' can be SHOWN in ANY way that one thinks or feels that 'it' 'should' be SHOWN. 'you' are OLD ENOUGH to KNOW what is Right and BEST, correct?

4. I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT and GAIN and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even BEGIN to PRESUME 'things'. That way you will NOT express these Truly Wrong and ABSURD, to me, CONCLUSIONS that you have and/or HOLD.

As you would say 'I said it seems'. It seems here like you jumped to the conclusion that I jumped to a conclusion, whereas I said 'it seems'. Which of course leaves room for you to explain.

When I ask questions, you tell me I am making assumptions. When I say, 'it seems' you tell me I have expressed truly wrong absurd conclusions.

It seems like you are very human.

Anger has a set of physiological facets. These are present even when people suppress, try to hide, repress the expression. To a lesser degree, but they are present, especially for those who have long paid attention. Are those facets of the physiology of anger that show the emotion bad, but the ones that are less easy to see/hear...those can be lovely?

Well considering the Fact that this is NOTHING that I have thought, let alone SAID, and EXPRESSED, WHY do you consider you CAME TO and ARRIVED AT 'this CONCLUSION'?

Ibid.

Also, it is EXTREMELY and SIMPLY to JUST EXPRESS ALL 'emotions' through WORDS, ALONE.

I don't think you understand the physiology of emotions as explained earlier.

How and I suppose why did you decide that if you did?

Have you REALLY NOT YET NOTICED just HOW OFTEN you make YOUR QUESTIONS based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and that THOSE ASSUMPTIONS could be completely and utterly False, Wrong, or Incorrect, from the outset?

I guess when you ask questions I should assume that you have already reached conclusions and they are not really questions.

Oh, and by the way, what I gathered from the above is that IF you had just LISTENED TO, and HEARD, 'your' wife, from the outset, then 'your' wife would NOT have GOT 'angry', NOR SHOWN 'anger'.

That's not relevant to the issue of whether it was lovely or not.

LOL If this is, supposedly, NOT 'relevant', to you, then so be it.

Do you WANT us to just IGNORE ALL of it?

As you would say...I never said that.

IF you SEE "others" EXPRESSING 'their ANGER', TO you, as 'lovely', then GREAT.

The MORE 'we' SHOW and EXPRESS 'our ANGER', TO you, then the MORE 'lovely' you WILL FIND these INTERACTIONS, correct?

How could you have possibly missed that I said, for example, that there are a range of reactions I have to anger or my talking about 'as a rule' or my talking about a specific situation where I found it lovely?

Do you, REALLY, need "others" around you to GET angry or SHOW anger BEFORE you will LISTEN and HEAR them?

I listen and hear. [/quote]

LOL

You have just gone through a WHOLE THREAD of SHOWING and PROVING OTHERWISE.

Nope, but you sure seem to have.

But I have NEVER EVER SAID this EVEN ONCE.

But you do have a HABIT of NOT LISTENING.

And, for FURTHER PROOF of 'this' 'we' could ASK 'your' wife, correct? Or, do you think or BELIEVE that 'she' would say otherwise?

Further proof? My wife would not, as they said once, give you the time of day. She wonders, lol, why I spend so much time communicating with someone with so little self-insight. That's a direct quote. She also specifically pointed out all your judgments and assumptions in part of this post, ones that you make while pointing the finger at me. She doesn't suffer fools gladly.

I mentioned a situation where she expressed anger because her bringing up something without showing me anger had not instantly changed my habit.

I know that you, when someone close to you, brings up a habit of yours and says I am angry because....
you change that habit instantly.

Since I didn't change from those things she said earlier, you considered this PROOF that I was someone who did not listen in general.

I'd point this out as you doing what you keep accusing others of doing, but I am afraid your past behavior has less me to believe this would be a waste of my time.

So, what an example of an instance when you or someone you were in the company of got angry and you thought it was absolutely lovely?

WHY 'they' just TELL ME in WORDS, 'I feel 'angry', because of ...'.

And, by the way, it is USUALLY BECAUSE of 'what i have done'.

Which, a LOT of the time, BEFORE, was also for NOT LISTENING and NOT HEARING what "others" were ACTUALLY MEANING, in what they were ACTUALLY SAYING.

But I have since then LEARNED HOW TO HEAR, and LISTEN TO, what is BEING MEANT in what is BEING SAID.

I don't think you understand what a specific instance is.

So, does this all mean you never express anger here?

LOL

HERE is a GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW from just one Wrong PRESUMPTION, at the outset, ALL FOLLOWING PRESUMPTIONS can lead to one absolutely VERY False, Wrong and/or Incorrect CONCLUSION.

If I ask questions, they are conclusions. When you ask questions they are for clarification, even though your questions are based on assumptions also.

Or if you did show it, you would feel this is unlovely of you?

Well considering that there are ONLY WORDS being SHOWED, and EXPRESSED, here, in this forum, and the WORDS, EXPRESSED, are of ABSOLUTE Truth, then this, to me, could NEVER be so-called 'unlovely'. Unless, OF COURSE, one SAID and EXPRESSED that they were GOING TO do some 'thing', so-called 'unlovely', then this THREAT, expressed ANGRILY, would be 'unlovely'.

Ah, so when you said that thing about the ABSOLUTE PROOF in relation to me that was THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Fine, I appreciate you being so honest about your habits of mind.

I have interacted enough with you Age for my interest. So, it does not matter what you say to me from here on out. I will not read it. This is the absolute truth about my future behavior. I say this so that it is easier for you to separate out what you say here from what you actually notice about yourself. These are clearly two very different things. Perhaps you'll notice that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing and not just as an exception. Perhaps you won't. Perhaps you will learn something about yourself, perhaps you won't. I hope you'll take some time to be honest with yourself, because most people are going to avoid you, especially those for whom your behavior is transparently hypocritical rather than just odd or annoying which is why the mass will avoid you for the wrong reasons. And for your sake and hers or his, if you have a partner, I can only hope you do not interact with her or him this way. This habit or set of habits they could preclude ever having intimacy with an equal.

May you find what you want, Age.

[Iwannaplato]

Several people (myself included in the past) have tried to build a bridge of communication/understanding with Age, but he nearly always responds with the childish shouty letters and distorted projections which are more trouble than they're worth to straighten out. Even when that's pointed out to him, he goes right back to the same habit of telling everyone how wrong they are about just about everything, while claiming what he knows about just about everything.

In the meantime, any insights he comes up with are no more significant than those of other forum posters.

It's disappointing, but not that much.

Right. Like you, I wish him well... I just don't want to deal with all that he generates, as he seems to generate far more than he sees/hears from others.

I bolded the points that I am in utter agreement with and also consider key and which nicely mirrored my reactions to the last post of his I'll read. And that last point you make, about generating more than he sees/hears from others is ironic because this is his bête noire. I still find it amazing how some people cannot notice certain glaring things about themselves and this, sometimes unfortunately, leads me to try to build bridges where it would probably be better for me to do something else.

[Age]

WHEN have I EVER, supposedly and allegedly, GENERALIZED.

You didn't generalize that all people react as you do. You generalized that to you it is always not lovely regardless of context....

To 'me', showing 'anger' is always NOT 'lovely'. SO, HOW, EXACTLY, could this 'generalization', from your USAGE of the word, even be NOT correct?

Will you EXPLAIN 'this'?

However, to me, SHOWING 'anger' in ANY form AT ALL is NOT 'lovely', in ANY WAY.

If you find 'your' wife BEING ANGRY, AT you, and/or SHOWING ANGER, TOWARDS you, IS 'lovely', FOR you, then GREAT.

Great.

From what I have observed MOST people do NOT like "others" BEING ANGRY, and, on MOST occasions, they do NOT find 'ANGRY PEOPLE' 'lovely' AT ALL.

I think it is sad to me that that would be a rule for someone.

LOL WHERE is this 'rule' word here COMING FROM, EXACTLY?

WHO do you IMAGINE here has 'that' as a so-called 'rule'?

But humans are diverse.

Were you under some sort of PRESUMPTION that there is ANY one who thinks or BELIEVES 'humans' are NOT diverse?

If no, then WHY say this here?

But if yes, then WHO do you IMAGINE thinks or BELIEVES 'humans' are NOT diverse?

If that is how they want to live, I hope they manage to create a way to live that.

If you want to live by finding 'ANGRY PEOPLE' 'lovely', then I suggest you do NOT become SURPRISED when people BECOME 'ANGRY' with you.

And just ENJOY when they 'ANGRY' WITH and TO you.

I CERTAINLY ACCEPT that you SAY and might well BELIEVE that you experience an 'ANGRY WIFE' that way. But you are incorrect when you generalize 'things' that are NOT true.

I said anger can be lovely. I know others who are in relationships with friends and family members who have similar reactions to me, often in longer term intimate relations. So, I stand by my use of the word 'can'.

You can stand by your words and even your BELIEFS for as long as you like. If you like MAKING "others" 'ANGRY' and find it LOVELY when they become
'ANGRY' WITH you, then so be it.

If you are like some who grow up NEEDING "others" to be ANGRY WITH them, BEFORE they will CHANGE your ways, and you even want to REMAIN WITH and IN this NON RESPONSIBLE attitude into even your own later years in Life, then so be it.

If you are NOT RESPONSIBLE for your OWN life and NEED "others" to TAKE CONTROL OVER you, and FOR you, by them GETTING ANGRY WITH you, and you find this LOVELY, then that is all well and good. But, some SEE this attitude and way of living NOT the BEST way to live AT ALL.

If this is something you want to avoid or find unlovely in all cases, then I hope you manage to avoid it, or not experience it.

Unlike you, I JUST AVOID it by NOT MAKING "others" around me ANGRY. SIMPLE REALLY.

Should she have kept her feelings out of her voice and facial expression?

That all depends.

On? And since you say, it depends, that implies, I think that perhaps she should have.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, this one PROVES just HOW MUCH these people, back in those days, just could NOT STOP "themselves" from MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

WHY did you NOT write, "that implies, I think that perhaps she should NOT have", INSTEAD or AS WELL?

So, what would have made it such that she should have kept her feelings out of her face, given how I described the situation?

EXACTLY AS I EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY. Through WORDS ALONE.

BUT, BECAUSE you OBVIOUSLY DO NOT LISTEN and HEAR what is being TOLD TO you, 'she' and "others" would OBVIOUSLY resort to SHOWING 'ANGER' TO you.

If so, why is that?

You appear to be MISSING THE POINT that I was making earlier.

IF you HAD LISTENED TO 'your' wife in the FIRST PLACE, then 'your' wife would NEVER had HAD TO express the ANGRY 'feelings' WITHIN through voice and facial expression.

I didn't miss that point.

SO, WHY did you NOT SAY or NOT ADMIT, earlier, that YOU could have done things DIFFERENT, so as to NOT MAKE 'your' wife ANGRY?

Or, is it BECAUSE you find 'your' wife GETTING ANGRY 'lovely', that this then influences you to KEEP MAKING 'your' wife ANGRY and/or MORE ANGRY.

There we were in that situation, where I had, yes, listened, but my habit in relation to myself had not changed.

LOL OBVIOUSLY you HAD NOT BEEN LISTENING to the WORDS that 'your' wife WAS USING, and you ONLY WAITED UNTIL FACIAL EXPRESSION of ANGER, BEFORE you STARTED TO LISTEN.

Or, does 'your' WIFE 'just SNAP', as some say, and GET ANGRY at the 'drop of hat over ANY thing', as "others" might say?

That was the situation. That was reality. Now you are talking about what I should have done before that situation.

WILL you PLEASE START LISTENING?

I DO NOT TALK ABOUT what you SHOULD NOR SHOULD NOT DO. Can you UNDERSTAND 'this'? Or, are you STILL NOT LISTENING and COMPREHENDING this. I have ALREADY INFORMED you BEFORE. BUT, like A LOT OF WHAT I SAY TO you, it appears to just 'FALL ON DEAF EARS', as some would say.

Given the situation, I think it is lovely that she expressed her anger.

GREAT.

As I HAVE ALREADY SAID, If you FIND MAKING 'your' wife ANGRY, and MAKING 'her' EXPRESS that ANGER through 'voice tone', 'facial expression', and/or mis/behavior, then NO one here anyway is suggesting that you STOP this way of MISBEHAVING, to 'Us'.

ONCE MORE, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to DO whatever it is that PLEASES you. So, AGAIN, if MAKING 'your' wife ANGRY PLEASES you, then PLEASE CONTINUE ON DOING THIS.

Can you UNDERSTAND 'this' this time?

I understood the first time. But it is not relevant, as far as my wife showing her emotions, in that situations. She made the right choice for us in that situation.

'your' wife was ONLY 'showing her emotions' BECAUSE you were NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for 'your' life and 'your' ways of behaving, or misbehaving.

It was the expression of her anger that helped me let go of a pattern.

AND, it was ONLY you NOT LISTENING to 'your' wife, from the outset, WHY 'your' wife HAD TO EXPRESS 'ANGER'.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now, that IF you LISTENED TO 'your' wife, from the beginning, then 'ANGRY' 'feelings or emotions' would NOT have ARISEN WITHIN 'that body', which were THEN EXPRESSED through, and SHOWN with, 'that body'.

Yes,

GREAT. SO WILL YOU NOW TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for WHAT YOU HAVE DONE here?

but that was not the situation.

So, you SAY, 'Yes', in regards to UNDERSTANDING that IF you had DONE things DIFFERENTLY then 'your' wife would NOT have REACTED the way 'she' DID, BUT THEN you now SAY and CLAIM that that was NOT 'the situation'.

HOW can you UNDERSTAND what is now, supposedly, NOT 'the situation'?

And we are talking about whether her showing her emotions was lovely or not.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Are you, REALLY, going to 'TRY TO' "justify" or "minimize" WHAT YOU DID there, to 'Me'?

LOOK, we ALREADY KNOW that you BELIEVE that 'your' wife GETTING ANGRY and HAVING TO SHOW this ANGER, TO you, BEFORE you even BEGIN to LISTEN TO 'her', you FIND 'lovely'.

I just do NOT.

What I would FIND 'lovely' is IF you STARTED Truly LISTENING TO 'your' wife, in order so that 'she' NEVER HAS TO GET ANGRY WITH you just so you can HEAR what 'she' HAS BEEN TELLING you ALL ALONG.

Did she make the right choice in showing them? Yes.

TO you.

Did you understand this time?

LOL I have CLEARLY SEEN ALL ALONG what you HAVE BEEN 'trying to' "justify" here. But, the ONLY one you are "justifying" TO here IS 'you', "iwannaplato".

Are you YET AWARE that the 'ANGRY' 'feelings' WITHIN 'your' wife ONLY AROSE BECAUSE 'you' were NOT LISTENING TO what was BEING SAID. 'ANGRY' 'feelings' would have NEVER ROSE UP IF you had JUST BEEN LISTENING, and HEARING.

It was part of MY story, which you read, where I implied that and my words would not have made sense otherwise. Yes, I understood.

So, WHY, EXACTLY, do you FIND MAKING 'your' wife BECOME ANGRY and SHOWING ANGER 'lovely'?

Could this be BECAUSE this was just THE WAY 'things' WERE when you were 'growing up', and so have just come to think or BELIEVE that THIS WAY OF REACTING IS 'lovely'?

Could it be BECAUSE when you were in some of those MOST, literally, FORMULATIVE years, and some of the ONLY REACTIONS, or RESPONSES, you got and received, from those who were MEANT TO BE the MOST LOVING ones TO you, were DONE IN ANGER? If so, then could you have, and now continue to ASSOCIATE the ONLY ATTENTION you were REALLY GETTING, was 'lovely' in some sort of 'sense', with the REASON WHY 'that' ATTENTION was so-called 'lovely', was BECAUSE it was, AT LEAST, SOME ATTENTION, which is ALWAYS BETTER than NOT ATTENTION AT ALL, would be, in some sense, 'LOVELY'?

SEE, BECAUSE ATTENTION is, LITERALLY, NEEDED in Life, ANY ATTENTION will ALWAYS BE BETTER than NO ATTENTION AT ALL.

Was it wrong for her to show her emotions, was it unlovely to you that she showed them?

YES, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE.

BUT DO NOT FORGET, what is 'wrong', to 'me', may well be NOT 'wrong', to 'you', EVER.

Would you suggest to her that if she is in a similar situation she should not show them?

LOL
LOL
LOL

you are STILL NOT LISTENING and HEARING. IF I WAS TO SUGGEST absolutely ANY thing to absolutely ANY one here, then 'it' WOULD BE TO 'you', "iwannaplato". And what 'that' SUGGESTION WOULD BE would be to START LISTENING TO and HEARING what 'your' wife is SAYING TO you, SO THAT 'your' wife does NOT GET ANGRY EVER AGAIN.

Because here in the real world, in manifestation, not everything is perfect.

OBVIOUSLY, and 'you', "iwannaplato", as well as 'you', "other" adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, were ACTUAL LIVING PROOF that NOT EVERY thing is perfect.

EVERY thing ELSE, by the way, IS PERFECT.

Habits have formed.

In a way absolutely EVERY thing IS FORMED, through an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.

People make mistakes.

BUT NOT 'your' wife here, TO you, right?

you FIND 'your' wife GETTING ANGRY and SHOWING ANGER, TO you, as being 'LOVELY', right?

We, out here, have to deal with imperfect situastions. It was lovely how she dealt with it.

you KEEP FORGETTING to add the words, 'to me', in regards to 'you'.

Here you seem focused on blame.

What you call 'blame' "others" call 'reason/s'.

If you are not blaming me for a less than perfect situation, then I suggest that you consider your language yet again, because it seems like shifting to focus on what I should have done before the situation is not relevant to whether my wife should or should not have shown her anger or whether it was lovely or not....

If you BELIEVE that you HAVE DONE the BEST thing in this talked about situation, then so be it. you are absolutely FREE to BELIEVE absolutely ANY thing you like or WANT TO.

And that was the context for our discussion. I said anger could be lovely and you wanted to know why, given, it seemed that I thought love could be lovely.

AND, you have explained WHY SHOWING ANGER IS 'lovely' to you in a VERY, VERY NARROWED and TINY PERSPECTIVE of just ONE VERY MINUTE SITUATION of a MUCH LARGER SITUATION.

Is it true...you don't see the facial expression and voice tone as lovely and you judge them as negative?

1. I do NOT 'judge' 'things' as being 'negative' NOR 'positive' here.

Then your communication is much more misleading than even I realized.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The ONLY 'thing' MISLEADING 'you' here has been 'your' VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and/or MISINTERPRETATIONS.

My WORDS STAND ON their OWN.

your MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS, however, is a COMPLETELY OTHER MATTER.

You've said that the fault is yours in communication. I suggest this is one area you are communiating poorly.

I KNOW I am communicating POORLY. ALWAYS HAVE. AND, this is the VERY REASON WHY I AM here.

2. What I do see is that facial expressions and/or voice tones of 'ANGER' would NOT ARISE if 'you', adult human beings, had JUST been LISTENING from the beginning. And, when I say, 'LISTENING', I MEAN Truly LISTENING, which involves ACTUALLY HEARING what is being SAID, as well as what is being MEANT.

And here we are in a world that is not perfect

AND, ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS FOR THIS CAUSED and CREATED 'NON PERFECT world' IS BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, ARE NOT LISTENING, and NOT HEARING, what IS, LITERALLY, BEING SPELLED OUT and SAID TO, and FOR, you.

and we have habits and make mistakes and worse.

Here we can SEE FURTHER PROOF of just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN these adult human beings, back then, would 'TRY TO' "justify" and/or "minimize" their Wrong DOING.

In that world I find anger can be lovely, though yes, it can also be unlovely, as I said earlier.

Okay.

But I am HERE creating A GOAL of Peace AND Harmony WITH and FOR EVERY one, as One.

And, PART of this process involves EXPLAINING HOW and WHY it IS 'you', adult human beings, who HAVE CREATED, and ARE CREATING, in the days when this is being written, this 'NON PERFECT world', which 'you' ALL LIVE IN, and that children HAVE TO ENDURE WITH-(and)-IN, WAS PARTLY CREATED BECAUSE of adult human beings 'TRYING TO' "justify", "minimize", or "rationalize" their Wrong behaviors. EXACTLY LIKE what 'you' ARE DOING here "iwannoplato".

Should we suppress the expression of feelings you do consider lovely to feel?

See it is this type of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, which you are DOING HERE, BEFORE you GAINED and OBTAINED ACTUAL CLARITY WHY you SO FAR ASTRAY, in the Wrong DIRECTION, and OFF TOPIC as well.

I asked a question.

YES YOU DID. But it was ASKED with SOME PRESUMPTION, which CAME FROM a Wrong ASSUMPTION, which you are HOLDING ONTO here.

Now, if you, REALLY, would like me to EXPRESS, CLEARLY, what 'that' Wrong ASSUMPTION IS, EXACTLY, then, HOPEFULLY, by now you KNOW what you NEED TO DO, EXACTLY.

AGAIN, you are, LITERALLY, SHOWING and PROVING how you do NOT LISTEN TO what IS being SAID, and MEANT, and WHY in some feelings of 'ANGER' ARISE.

I asked a question. Should I assume like you just did in relation to me that you are not listening when you don't notice things I have said?

LOL
LOL
LOL

BUT, if I HAVE or HAVE NOT NOTICED the 'things', which you are now CLAIMING here now that I have NOT NOTICED, thee Truth OF, WILL ONLY BE FOUND AND COME-TO-LIGHT IF and WHEN you PROVIDE FURTHER WRITINGS.

Until then I am NOT ASSUMING that you are NOT LISTENING.

By your VERY WORDS you ARE and HAVE ALREADY PROVED that you have NOT BEEN LISTENING.

How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

You have REALLY NOT LISTENED TO what I HAVE BEEN SAYING, and MEANING here.

I asked a question.[/quote]

AND, I ANSWERED IT, IN and WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS.

How some thing that is 'lovely', like when the feeling of 'ANGER', and thus A SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING, arises WITHIN, becomes 'unlovely' would be liek, for example, when the, 'lovely', feeling of 'ANGER', which OBVIOUSLY DOES ARISE within 'your' wife when you are NOT LISTENING to 'her', (which might be on far more occasions than reported here), becomes 'unlovely', would be like when 'your' wife has easy access to a gun or a knife and SHOOTS or KNIFES you TO DEATH.

See, here you are not listening to me. I said several times 'as a rule.'

AND, to me, there is NO 'rule', and I have ALREADY MENTIONED this, correct?

That you had said the emotion of anger is as a rule unlovely to you when it is expressed.

I have NEVER EVER SAID, NOR IMAGINED, NOR THOUGHT, NOR IMPLIED that 'the emotion of anger is ANY so-called 'rule' unlovely to me when it is expressed'.

What do you do, you find a situation of extreme violence, even though in my post I mention that hitting would be a problem, and here you jump to a gun or knife use to kill me.

'you', "iwannaplato", ASKED ME: How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

SO, I JUST ANSWERED IT. Do you WANT me to ANSWER your QUESTIONS, or NOT?

Now, CAN you SEE and UNDERSTAND MY ANSWER?

If yes, then do you AGREE WITH IT and ACCEPT IT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I clearly said that I did not always find it lovely. Clearly. And agreed with you when you said it.

What is 'it' that I, supposedly, SAID, which you have supposedly ALREADY AGREED WITH?

Is this PROOF, as you say later in this post, that you regularly don't listen. My goodness, it might be good if you met someone exactly like you.

WHY THEN DID you ASK me THE QUESTION that you DID here?

If you did NOT WANT me to ANSWER it the WAY I DID, then WHAT, EXACTLY, did you WANT, from me?

LOOK "iwannaplato", YOU ASKED ME THE QUESTION: How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

So I TOLD YOU EXACTLY HOW, to me, some 'thing' that you say and call is 'lovely', when expressed, becomes what you say and call 'unlovely'.

I GAVE you ONE EXAMPLE of maybe COUNTLESS OTHER EXAMPLES. But, I GAVE you THE ONE I DID, and about the MOST OBVIOUS ONE, so that you COULD CLEARLY SEE, for and by 'yourself", just HOW, EXACTLY the 'lovely' BECOMES 'unlovely', WHEN expressed, or THROUGH expression.

I will now suggest that if you do NOT want me to provide you with AN ANSWER, which IS OBVIOUS, then JUST ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, INSTEAD.

This is WHEN the 'lovely' SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING in LIFE becomes 'unlovely', when expressed.

YOU SAID YOU THINK IT IS NOT LOVELY IN ANY SITUATION.

YES I DID, if I recall CORRECTLY.

But, SO WHAT?

Do you see how you did not listen, twisted by implication what I said`?

NO. WILL you CLEAR 'this' UP for us here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

ALL I DID WAS JUST ANSWER THEE QUESTION, which you POSED, and which you ASKED TO me.

What do you think or BELIEVE 'it' IS that I, supposedly, did NOT LISTEN TO here, EXACTLY?

?

Are you YET HEARING, and UNDERSTANDING, 'me', and 'this' here now?

Oh, I hear you Age. Do you hear yourself?

There is NO "yourself".

"yourself" IS an OXYMORON and/or a CONTRADICTION OF TERMS.

As a rule?

As JUST EXPLAINED.

And aren't feelings also their expression?

INTERNAL 'feelings' OR 'emotions' ARE JUST 'emotions'. 'Feelings' are NOT the so-called phrase, 'their expression'.

The phrase was ALSO their expression.

I KNOW. I just SAID, the so-called phrase 'their expression' is NOT 'feelings'. So, in other words, 'feelings' are, ALSO, also NOT 'their expression'.

LOOK, ALL 'emotions' are just 'felt', internally,

No, not just.

LOL OKAY. SO, WHERE, EXACTLY, are 'emotions' ALSO 'felt' if NOT JUST internally?

Emotions are complicated physical processes

This 'complicated' word just about ALWAYS gets USED for AN EXCUSE WHEN 'you', human beings, do NOT YET KNOW some 'thing'.

'Emotions' are NOT 'complicated' things AT ALL, and, the 'physical processes of emotions' is NOT 'complicated' EITHER. I have ALREADY EXPRESSED the ACTUAL PROCESSES, for information.

that affect breathing facial expression voice tone if the person is speaking and more.

ONLY WHEN 'you' EITHER ALLOW them to AFFECT these things, or WHEN 'you' are NOT IN CONTROL ANYMORE.

Oh, and by the way, WHEN one LEARNS TO ACCEPT and TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY, and THEN UNCOVERS WHO and WHAT 'I' REALLY AM, then 'emotions' can BE CONTROLLED ALWAYS. So, what this MEANS IS; emotions do NOT HAVE TO affect 'things' like breathing, facial expressions, nor voice tones, like you are 'TRYING TO' make out they do here.

Why does this natural connection need to be suppressed?

Absolutely NO one here has SAID that the natural connection needs to be suppressed.

Well that's the way to stop what is felt being shown, though it cannot be fully successful given emotional effects on unconscious processes.

LOL "iwannaplator", 'you' REALLY DO HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND here.

But you ALREADY MADE THIS VERY CLEAR when you STATED that; "Emotions ARE 'complicated' physical processes".

Many people do not want to notice emotions because of all the judgment out there, so suppression can be successful in many instances, but this is because of denial and avoidance.

Okay.

Oh, and by the way, one can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY EXPRESS, the natural connection, JUST, WITH and THROUGH the words, 'I feel angry, because ...'. And, expressing 'this way' will NOT cause ANY of what you would call 'negative consequences'.

LOL.

What does 'LOL' mean or refer to here, EXACTLY?

AND, WHY did you WRITE those letters here, EXACTLY?

Which, by the way, can be a VERY SLOW, and a VERY FRUSTRATING FEELING process. Which I FEEL for 'YOUR' wife.

Oh, I know how she felt on that day. I've even met people who as a rule defend their habits.

REALLY? WHO are THOSE 'people', and WHAT were THEIR HABITS, which you SAY and CLAIM that they 'defend, as a rule'?

Some focus on the other person all the time.

Could that be THEE one who is in a philosophy forum making STATEMENTS and/or CLAIMS about 'things'?

So if one reports what one is experiencing about them, they focus on the person pointing this out.

Is this some 'thing' like WHEN I reported what I have experienced ABOUT 'you', "iwannaplato", and how 'you' do NOT LISTEN and do NOT HEAR what is being SAID to 'you', but 'you' FOCUS on thee One POINTING 'this' OUT?

Or, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE does 'this' ONLY HAPPEN ONE WAY?

It could be through a mass of questions, many of which need not be asked.

NO question is NEEDED to be ASKED.

But, if one Truly KNOWS what they are TALKING ABOUT and CLAIMING, then there is NO question that that one would be AFRAID TO ANSWER, Honestly AND OPENLY I WILL ADD.

From what I have OBSERVED it is ONLY THOSE who DO NOT KNOW what they are ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT do NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS regarding what they SAY and CLAIM. Or, they just WANT TO HIDE SOME 'thing'.

They change the focus to something not relevant.

While "others" CLAIM some 'thing' is 'NOT relevant' ONLY to 'TRY TO' DETRACT or DEFLECT from what WAS BEING POINTED OUT and BEEN SHOWN.

When their ego is on the line, they cannot admit fault.

Which 'you', 'iwannaplato", HAVE PROVEN MANY TIMES ALREADY.

It can even happen online, where it is much easier to pretend one is not having certain reactions.

OR, WHERE one is ASSUMING certain reactions are HAPPENING. Which would be A Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'thing' to DO, REALLY.

Or pretend one is not judging.

Or, WHERE one BELIEVES the "other" is DOING some 'thing', but ACTUALLY they HAVE NO PROOF OF, AT ALL. Or, IF they DID, then CERTAIN HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED 'it'.

Or pretend that they way their are behaving online is not showing their rage or fear.

LOL
LOL
LOL

These 'people', back in these 'days', ACTUALLY BELIEVED that they COULD TELL what was GOING ON, EXACTLY, and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL, with A 'writer', and it did NOT matter one iota WHERE nor WHEN that 'writer' was writing FROM, relative to WHERE they WERE.

These human beings could NOT even ASSUME Correctly all of the time what WAS HAPPENING WITHIN "another" even WHEN 'face-to-face' with the "other", but these ones BELIEVE that they can ASSUME CORRECTLY ALL OF THE TIME with WRITTEN WORDS. Which is just FAR MORE ABSURD than it ACTUALLY SOUNDS.

This is HOW MUCH these 'people' ACTUALLY KEPT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, but worse still they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that their VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS were IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND correct.

A long time ago I might have wanted them to admit what was going on.

SEE, this one STILL BELIEVES that 'its' OWN ASSUMPTIONS could NOT EVER BE POSSIBLY Wrong in ANY WAY, AT ALL.

It would be much easier in real life where they body language would give away the ongoing lie.

LOL SEE HOW this one STILL BELIEVES that 'it' KNOWS, IRREFUTABLY, what the ACTUAL TRUTH IS here. AND, 'it' BELIEVES 'it' SO MUCH, that 'it' has even FOOLED "its" 'self' INTO BELIEVING that if 'it' were 'face-to-face' with the "other" then THERE WOULD BE IRREFUTABLE PROOF to back up and support 'its' PRE-EXISTING ASSUMPTION and BELIEF.

These 'people' REALLY WERE as DELUDED as this one is SHOWING and PROVING here.

But here online people can more easily hide, if not as completely as they seem to think, some specific individuals.

AND, WHY do 'you' NOT NAME 'them'?

Are you 'trying to' HIDE some 'thing' "your" 'self', "iwannaplato"?

ALSO, is this ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHEN some one POINTS OUT some 'thing' that 'you' do, 'you' THEN FOCUS 'your' ATTENTION ONTO the "other", INSTEAD of ONTO 'you', and/or ONTO ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS being USED?

But this is not a task I give myself anymore. Perhaps it will happen. I am not ruling out that in an interaction with me or someone else, they may notice how they are contradicting themselves or how angry they are and are showing it. But it is not a task I give myself.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER one who MAKES CLAIMS, but NEVER PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' for CLAIM, but ALSO VERY QUICKLY RUNS AWAY and HIDES UNDER some OTHER EXCUSE NOT TO.

So, INSTEAD of RUNNING AWAY and 'trying to' HIDE "iwannaplato", how about 'you' PROVIDE EXAMPLES of WHERE 'you' ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I or "others" have CONTRADICTED "ourselves"', as well as PROVIDING EXAMPLES of WHERE 'you' ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I or "others" ARE NOT NOTICING HOW, LOL, 'angry' we REALLY ARE and ARE showing 'it'.

This is MORE FUNNIER and ABSURD as it goes along.

WHERE are 'we', I or them, SHOWING 'anger', WHERE 'you' can NOTICE 'it' but 'we', supposedly, can NOT?

'you' REALLY SAY the Truly WEIRDEST 'things' sometimes "iwannaplato".

If one was NOT MISTAKEN 'you' appear to be QUITE UPSET, and/or ANGRY BECAUSE I have just POINTED OUT and SHOWN HOW 'you' MAKE 'your' wife ANGRY, and HOW you FIND this 'lovely'.

Or, have you STILL NOT RECOGNIZED and NOTICED this Fact, YET?

1. I NEVER think NOR say what 'you', "another", SHOULD DO or SHOULD NOT DO.

2. I live by one 'rule', or better, worded one 'lore' that I live by. I have NO 'rules' NOR 'laws' for "others".

3. 'Anger' can be SHOWN in ANY way that one thinks or feels that 'it' 'should' be SHOWN. 'you' are OLD ENOUGH to KNOW what is Right and BEST, correct?

4. I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT and GAIN and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even BEGIN to PRESUME 'things'. That way you will NOT express these Truly Wrong and ABSURD, to me, CONCLUSIONS that you have and/or HOLD.

As you would say 'I said it seems'. It seems here like you jumped to the conclusion that I jumped to a conclusion, whereas I said 'it seems'. Which of course leaves room for you to explain.

And I WILL EXPLAIN.

What you ACTUALLY WROTE was: It's that you have it, it seems, as a rule, that anger should not be shown.

AND, what I just did was SAY and EXPLAIN, more or less;

I do NOT have 'it', in ANY way, shape NOR form, that anger should NOT be shown. For the REASONS GIVEN.

I will ALSO remind you that it WILL BE BETTER for you if you SOUGHT OUT and GAINED CLARITY BEFORE MAKING ANY ASSUMPTION AT ALL. For example, if you SOUGHT OUT and CLARIFIED IF I would say or claim that anger should not be shown FIRST, then this WHOLE PROCESS could have be OVER and DONE WITH a LONG TIME AGO.

When I ask questions, you tell me I am making assumptions.

WHEN have I TOLD you you are making assumptions WHEN you ask questions?

If you do NOT PROVIDE ANY, then, AGAIN, you ARE RUNNING AWAY and HIDING, ONCE MORE.

When I say, 'it seems' you tell me I have expressed truly wrong absurd conclusions.

Well INSTEAD of SAYING 'it seems like, ...", and you JUST ASKED FOR CLARITY, FIRST, then you WOULD NOT SAY what is Truly Wrong and/or ABSURD, like above.

It seems like you are very human.

What ELSE could the 'you' word refer to, EXACTLY?

Anger has a set of physiological facets. These are present even when people suppress, try to hide, repress the expression. To a lesser degree, but they are present, especially for those who have long paid attention. Are those facets of the physiology of anger that show the emotion bad, but the ones that are less easy to see/hear...those can be lovely?

Well considering the Fact that this is NOTHING that I have thought, let alone SAID, and EXPRESSED, WHY do you consider you CAME TO and ARRIVED AT 'this CONCLUSION'?

Ibid.

Also, it is EXTREMELY and SIMPLY to JUST EXPRESS ALL 'emotions' through WORDS, ALONE.

I don't think you understand the physiology of emotions as explained earlier.

I wonder if you have EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HOW, EXACTLY, emotions are EXPRESSED in books and in writings.

How and I suppose why did you decide that if you did?

Have you REALLY NOT YET NOTICED just HOW OFTEN you make YOUR QUESTIONS based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and that THOSE ASSUMPTIONS could be completely and utterly False, Wrong, or Incorrect, from the outset?

I guess when you ask questions I should assume that you have already reached conclusions and they are not really questions.

SEE here, ONCE AGAIN, how this one did NOT read what I wrote WITHOUT MAKING ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, and WITHOUT JUMPING TO ANOTHER CONCLUSION.

Oh, and by the way, what I gathered from the above is that IF you had just LISTENED TO, and HEARD, 'your' wife, from the outset, then 'your' wife would NOT have GOT 'angry', NOR SHOWN 'anger'.

That's not relevant to the issue of whether it was lovely or not.

LOL If this is, supposedly, NOT 'relevant', to you, then so be it.

Do you WANT us to just IGNORE ALL of it?

As you would say...I never said that.

What is the 'that' here word referring to, EXACTLY? And,

What do the 'not relevant' words here refer to, EXACTLY, if NOT what that term was referring to to NOT be ignored?

IF you SEE "others" EXPRESSING 'their ANGER', TO you, as 'lovely', then GREAT.

The MORE 'we' SHOW and EXPRESS 'our ANGER', TO you, then the MORE 'lovely' you WILL FIND these INTERACTIONS, correct?

How could you have possibly missed that I said, for example, that there are a range of reactions I have to anger or my talking about 'as a rule' or my talking about a specific situation where I found it lovely?

But I NEVER MISSED 'that'.

I just POINTED OUT and SAID that IF you SEE "others" EXPRESSING 'their ANGER', TO you, as 'lovely', then that IS GREAT, FOR 'you', AND THEN ASKED, IF the MORE 'we' SHOW and EXPRESS 'our ANGER', TO you, then is it correct that then the MORE 'lovely' you WILL FIND these INTERACTIONS?

Do you, REALLY, need "others" around you to GET angry or SHOW anger BEFORE you will LISTEN and HEAR them?

I listen and hear.

LOL

You have just gone through a WHOLE THREAD of SHOWING and PROVING OTHERWISE.

Nope, but you sure seem to have.

OKAY. To 'you' I SURE seem to HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING and HEARING 'you'. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that it SURE seems that I have NOT HEARD here?

But I have NEVER EVER SAID this EVEN ONCE.

But you do have a HABIT of NOT LISTENING.

And, for FURTHER PROOF of 'this' 'we' could ASK 'your' wife, correct? Or, do you think or BELIEVE that 'she' would say otherwise?

Further proof? My wife would not, as they said once, give you the time of day.[/quote]

But I SAID, VERY CLEARLY, 'we' and NOT just 'i', NOR 'I'.

And, who and/or what is 'they', that ONCE said, 'give you the time of day'?

She wonders, lol, why I spend so much time communicating with someone with so little self-insight.

Do 'you' talk to 'her' ABOUT 'me', and, EXPLAIN that I have SO LITTLE self-insight?

If yes, then WHY?

And, who and/or what IS the 'self' ACTUALLY?

That's a direct quote.

So, 'you' MUST TELL 'her' ABOUT 'me'. Now I am WONDERING WHY 'you' would spend SO MUCH TIME communicating WITH "others" ABOUT 'me'.

Or, does 'she' READ 'our' communications "iwannaplato"?

If yes, then WHY does 'she' NOT reply AT ALL "her" 'self'?

She also specifically pointed out all your judgments and assumptions in part of this post, ones that you make while pointing the finger at me.

REALLY?

Are EITHER of 'you two' BRAVE ENOUGH to POINT OUT and SHOW, EXACTLY, WHERE I HAVE, supposedly, MADE 'judgments' AND 'assumptions', in part of this post?

After all it should be a VERY EASY and SIMPLE 'thing' for 'you', "iwannaplato" TO DO 'now'. Especially considering the Fact that 'she' HAS ALREADY, SUPPOSEDLY, POINTED OUT ALL of 'them', SPECIFICALLY, TO 'you'.

BUT, WHETHER 'you' RUN AWAY and 'try to' HIDE, or DO ACTUALLY PROVIDE 'them' FOR 'us', 'we' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

She doesn't suffer fools gladly.

HOW does 'she' SHOW and EXPRESS 'this' EXACTLY?

Through ANGER, sometimes?

Does 'she' GET ANGRY WITH 'fools', sometimes?

I mentioned a situation where she expressed anger because her bringing up something without showing me anger had not instantly changed my habit.

Yes, we CLEARLY SAW and HEARD 'that' ABOVE here.

I know that you, when someone close to you, brings up a habit of yours and says I am angry because....
you change that habit instantly.

HOW do 'you' KNOW 'this'?

AND, could 'you' BE Wrong here, AS WELL?

Or, is this NOT a possibility, in "iwannaplato's" 'world'?

Since I didn't change from those things she said earlier, you considered this PROOF that I was someone who did not listen in general.

NO I NEVER.

The PROOF that you do NOT LISTEN, in general, can be CLEARLY SEEN and RECOGNIZED throughout this thread AND forum.

The Fact that you do NOT LISTEN to 'your' OWN wife just GAVE 'this' FURTHER WEIGHT and SUPPORT.

I'd point this out as you doing what you keep accusing others of doing, but I am afraid your past behavior has less me to believe this would be a waste of my time.

AND, if this is what you BELIEVE, then there, to you, could be NO OTHER POSSIBILITY NOR WAY.

So, what an example of an instance when you or someone you were in the company of got angry and you thought it was absolutely lovely?

WHY 'they' just TELL ME in WORDS, 'I feel 'angry', because of ...'.

And, by the way, it is USUALLY BECAUSE of 'what i have done'.

Which, a LOT of the time, BEFORE, was also for NOT LISTENING and NOT HEARING what "others" were ACTUALLY MEANING, in what they were ACTUALLY SAYING.

But I have since then LEARNED HOW TO HEAR, and LISTEN TO, what is BEING MEANT in what is BEING SAID.

I don't think you understand what a specific instance is.

I do NOT think you REALIZE that you did NOT even ASK for a 'specific instance'.

You just SAID, 'an example of AN instance'.

Also, I just NOTICED that I did NOT even answer your QUESTION here.

So, to ANSWER your QUESTION. I have NEVER thought that 'you' NOR 'I' BEING ANGRY was EVER 'lovely', let alone 'absolutely lovely'.

I do NOT recall EVER even having the thought that GETTING ANGRY was even NECESSARY in Life, let alone 'lovely'.

Oh, and by the way, 'lovely' would NEVER have been a word that I would have USED BEFORE in relation to the 'anger' or 'angry' words.

So, does this all mean you never express anger here?

LOL

HERE is a GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW from just one Wrong PRESUMPTION, at the outset, ALL FOLLOWING PRESUMPTIONS can lead to one absolutely VERY False, Wrong and/or Incorrect CONCLUSION.

If I ask questions, they are conclusions. When you ask questions they are for clarification, even though your questions are based on assumptions also. [/quote]

ONLY WHEN you PROVIDE the ASSUMED ASSUMPTION/S of mine, then we HAVE some 'thing' to ACTUALLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Until then please REFRAIN from ACCUSING me of doing some 'thing' IN THE PAST.

If you FIND FAULT or FLAW in my writings, then BRING them OUT WHEN you SEE and NOTICE them, and NOT LATER ON. That way you will NOT be LOOKED AT as BEING DECEPTIVE.

Mentioning them AFTERWARDS helps NO one.

AND, BECAUSE your QUESTION here was SO MISLEADING, and FULL OF PRESUMPTIONS, I ANSWERED 'it' HOW I DID.

So, if you READ, LISTENED TO, SAW, and HEARD MY ANSWER, then you would ALREADY KNOW that MY ANSWER is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you were ASKING here.

Or if you did show it, you would feel this is unlovely of you?

Well considering that there are ONLY WORDS being SHOWED, and EXPRESSED, here, in this forum, and the WORDS, EXPRESSED, are of ABSOLUTE Truth, then this, to me, could NEVER be so-called 'unlovely'. Unless, OF COURSE, one SAID and EXPRESSED that they were GOING TO do some 'thing', so-called 'unlovely', then this THREAT, expressed ANGRILY, would be 'unlovely'.

Ah, so when you said that thing about the ABSOLUTE PROOF in relation to me that was THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

WHAT ARE you TALKING ABOUT here?

Fine, I appreciate you being so honest about your habits of mind.

AND WHAT ARE you TALKING ABOUT here, AS WELL?

I have interacted enough with you Age for my interest.

OKAY, you HINTED AT THIS BEFORE, BUT you CONTINUED ON ANYWAY.

So, it does not matter what you say to me from here on out. I will not read it.

So here we have ANOTHER one RUNNING AWAY and HIDING, from WHAT I ACTUALLY POINTED OUT and SHOWED ABOUT 'them', which they DID NOT LIKE, as well as RUNNING AWAY and HIDING instead of continually even 'trying to' just backing up and supporting what they SAY and CLAIM here.

This is the absolute truth about my future behavior.

We WILL JUST HAVE TO, TO SEE.

I say this so that it is easier for you to separate out what you say here from what you actually notice about yourself.

LOL

So, YOUR EXCUSE for RUNNING AWAY and HIDING is BECAUSE of 'me' and what is LAUGHABLY, supposedly, EASIER for 'me'. LOL

These are clearly two very different things. Perhaps you'll notice that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing and not just as an exception.

BUT it IS 'you', "iwannaplato", who is DOING EXACTLY what 'you' ARE ACCUSING "others" of DOING here.

Perhaps you won't. Perhaps you will learn something about yourself, perhaps you won't.

you MIGHT PERHAPS LISTEN, but you OBVIOUSLY can NOT NOW.

Unless, OF COURSE, this is ANOTHER LIE like your OTHER one OBVIOUSLY WAS.

I hope you'll take some time to be honest with yourself, because most people are going to avoid you, especially those for whom your behavior is transparently hypocritical

AND, for ALL of those whom would like to CLAIM that MY BEHAVIOR is, laughably, TRANSPARENTLY HYPOCRITICAL, how about 'you', ALL, back up and support YOUR CLAIMS with some ACTUAL EVIDENCE and better still some ACTUAL PROOF. Or, are you just going to RUN AWAY and HIDE like "iwannaplato" IS GOING TO here, now?

SAYING, 'you are transparently hypocritical', while you have got 'YOUR BACKED TURNED' and RUNNING OFF IN FEAR and SCARED, while NOT PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' is NOT EXACTLY how philosophy forums work BEST.

rather than just odd or annoying which is why the mass will avoid you for the wrong reasons.

Ah, so ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, we have ANOTHER one WHOSE VIEWS and BELIEFS are the ONLY true, right, AND correct ones, and if ANY one else, or EVEN THE MASS have VARYING or DIFFERENT VIEWS and/or BELIEFS, then it is THEM WHO IS WRONG.

WHY is YOUR REASON for RUNNING AWAY and HIDING "iwannaplato" the, so-called, RIGHT REASON, but the "others" is the WRONG REASON?

WHY is it that you ALWAYS KNOW what is RIGHT here, and if absolutely ANY one has an OPPOSING VIEW, then 'it' is WRONG?

And for your sake and hers or his, if you have a partner, I can only hope you do not interact with her or him this way.

WHY? AND,

WHAT WAY, EXACTLY?

This habit or set of habits they could preclude ever having intimacy with an equal.

I have NO IDEA NOR CLUE what ANY of this is SAYING, REFERRING TO, NOR MEANING.

May you find what you want, Age.

I HAVE ALREADY GOT WHAT I WANTED, FROM 'you', "iwannaplato".

[Age]

It seems OK for Age to assume and generalize and judge and not take time to feel into something new or possibly new, but it is not ok for others according to Age.

Ah, well, habits are hard to break it seems for you. It was useful for me to try to bridge, and at the same time I hoped there would be a sign that it would actually be felt into, considered.

Several people (myself included in the past) have tried to build a bridge of communication/understanding with Age, but he nearly always responds with the childish shouty letters and distorted projections which are more trouble than they're worth to straighten out.

This one STILL BELIEVES I SHOUT here.

Which is Truly LAUGHABLE, especially considering the ACTUAL POSITION that we ARE, literally, IN.

Also, it is "lacewings" DISTORTED PROJECTIONS, which I HAVE POINTED OUT and ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY True that "lacewing" does NOT LIKE TO LOOK AT and SEE WHY this one was just ANOTHER one who RUNS AWAY and HIDES from THE Truth.

Even when that's pointed out to him, he goes right back to the same habit of telling everyone how wrong they are about just about everything, while claiming what he knows about just about everything.

Well this is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. And so just ANOTHER one of "lacewings" DISTORTED PROJECTIONS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, that are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting.

In the meantime, any insights he comes up with are no more significant than those of other forum posters.

This one SAYS 'this' as though there is some ACTUALLY MEANING BEHIND 'it'.

There is NOT a human being who has, LAUGHABLY, COME UP WITH with an 'insight' that is MORE NOR LESS 'significant' than ANY OTHER 'insight'.

But, there are SOME, like "lacewing", "itself', who would LOVE TO BELIEVE that 'its' so-called 'OWN insights' are FAR MORE significant than the insights of "others". AND, this can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way 'it' WRITES and SPEAKS here.

So, ONCE AGAIN, thee PROOF is HERE for ALL to LOOK AT and SEE.

It's disappointing, but not that much.

Right. Like you, I wish him well... I just don't want to deal with all that he generates, as he seems to generate far more than he sees/hears from others.

IF ONLY these ones KNEW. IF ONLY they KNEW.

[Age]

Several people (myself included in the past) have tried to build a bridge of communication/understanding with Age, but he nearly always responds with the childish shouty letters and distorted projections which are more trouble than they're worth to straighten out. Even when that's pointed out to him, he goes right back to the same habit of telling everyone how wrong they are about just about everything, while claiming what he knows about just about everything.

In the meantime, any insights he comes up with are no more significant than those of other forum posters.

It's disappointing, but not that much.

Right. Like you, I wish him well... I just don't want to deal with all that he generates, as he seems to generate far more than he sees/hears from others.

I bolded the points that I am in utter agreement with and also consider key and which nicely mirrored my reactions to the last post of his I'll read. And that last point you make, about generating more than he sees/hears from others is ironic because this is his bête noire.

LOL I NEVER SAID I DISLIKED that 'you', adult human beings, do NOT LISTEN and SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', in the days when this is being written.

I have just SAID and WROTE that 'this' IS what 'you' DO. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT be REFUTED, and thus is JUST ANOTHER IRREFUTABLE Truth that 'you' have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD here.

The Fact that 'you', adults, do NOT LIKE SEEING and HEARING this Truth, and so RUN AWAY, just PROVES IRREFUTABLY True what else I have been SAYING and CLAIMING here.

I still find it amazing how some people cannot notice certain glaring things about themselves and this, sometimes unfortunately, leads me to try to build bridges where it would probably be better for me to do something else.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The AMOUNT OF IRONY here is, literally, BLINDING.

AGAIN, IF ONLY they KNEW.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

WHEN have I EVER, supposedly and allegedly, GENERALIZED.

You didn't generalize that all people react as you do. You generalized that to you it is always not lovely regardless of context....

To 'me', showing 'anger' is always NOT 'lovely'. SO, HOW, EXACTLY, could this 'generalization', from your USAGE of the word, even be NOT correct?

Will you EXPLAIN 'this'?

However, to me, SHOWING 'anger' in ANY form AT ALL is NOT 'lovely', in ANY WAY.

If you find 'your' wife BEING ANGRY, AT you, and/or SHOWING ANGER, TOWARDS you, IS 'lovely', FOR you, then GREAT.

Great.

From what I have observed MOST people do NOT like "others" BEING ANGRY, and, on MOST occasions, they do NOT find 'ANGRY PEOPLE' 'lovely' AT ALL.

I think it is sad to me that that would be a rule for someone.

LOL WHERE is this 'rule' word here COMING FROM, EXACTLY?

WHO do you IMAGINE here has 'that' as a so-called 'rule'?

But humans are diverse.

Were you under some sort of PRESUMPTION that there is ANY one who thinks or BELIEVES 'humans' are NOT diverse?

If no, then WHY say this here?

But if yes, then WHO do you IMAGINE thinks or BELIEVES 'humans' are NOT diverse?

If that is how they want to live, I hope they manage to create a way to live that.

If you want to live by finding 'ANGRY PEOPLE' 'lovely', then I suggest you do NOT become SURPRISED when people BECOME 'ANGRY' with you.

And just ENJOY when they 'ANGRY' WITH and TO you.

I CERTAINLY ACCEPT that you SAY and might well BELIEVE that you experience an 'ANGRY WIFE' that way. But you are incorrect when you generalize 'things' that are NOT true.

I said anger can be lovely. I know others who are in relationships with friends and family members who have similar reactions to me, often in longer term intimate relations. So, I stand by my use of the word 'can'.

You can stand by your words and even your BELIEFS for as long as you like. If you like MAKING "others" 'ANGRY' and find it LOVELY when they become
'ANGRY' WITH you, then so be it.

If you are like some who grow up NEEDING "others" to be ANGRY WITH them, BEFORE they will CHANGE your ways, and you even want to REMAIN WITH and IN this NON RESPONSIBLE attitude into even your own later years in Life, then so be it.

If you are NOT RESPONSIBLE for your OWN life and NEED "others" to TAKE CONTROL OVER you, and FOR you, by them GETTING ANGRY WITH you, and you find this LOVELY, then that is all well and good. But, some SEE this attitude and way of living NOT the BEST way to live AT ALL.

If this is something you want to avoid or find unlovely in all cases, then I hope you manage to avoid it, or not experience it.

Unlike you, I JUST AVOID it by NOT MAKING "others" around me ANGRY. SIMPLE REALLY.

Should she have kept her feelings out of her voice and facial expression?

That all depends.

On? And since you say, it depends, that implies, I think that perhaps she should have.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, this one PROVES just HOW MUCH these people, back in those days, just could NOT STOP "themselves" from MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

WHY did you NOT write, "that implies, I think that perhaps she should NOT have", INSTEAD or AS WELL?

So, what would have made it such that she should have kept her feelings out of her face, given how I described the situation?

EXACTLY AS I EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY. Through WORDS ALONE.

BUT, BECAUSE you OBVIOUSLY DO NOT LISTEN and HEAR what is being TOLD TO you, 'she' and "others" would OBVIOUSLY resort to SHOWING 'ANGER' TO you.

If so, why is that?

You appear to be MISSING THE POINT that I was making earlier.

IF you HAD LISTENED TO 'your' wife in the FIRST PLACE, then 'your' wife would NEVER had HAD TO express the ANGRY 'feelings' WITHIN through voice and facial expression.

I didn't miss that point.

SO, WHY did you NOT SAY or NOT ADMIT, earlier, that YOU could have done things DIFFERENT, so as to NOT MAKE 'your' wife ANGRY?

Or, is it BECAUSE you find 'your' wife GETTING ANGRY 'lovely', that this then influences you to KEEP MAKING 'your' wife ANGRY and/or MORE ANGRY.

There we were in that situation, where I had, yes, listened, but my habit in relation to myself had not changed.

LOL OBVIOUSLY you HAD NOT BEEN LISTENING to the WORDS that 'your' wife WAS USING, and you ONLY WAITED UNTIL FACIAL EXPRESSION of ANGER, BEFORE you STARTED TO LISTEN.

Or, does 'your' WIFE 'just SNAP', as some say, and GET ANGRY at the 'drop of hat over ANY thing', as "others" might say?

That was the situation. That was reality. Now you are talking about what I should have done before that situation.

WILL you PLEASE START LISTENING?

I DO NOT TALK ABOUT what you SHOULD NOR SHOULD NOT DO. Can you UNDERSTAND 'this'? Or, are you STILL NOT LISTENING and COMPREHENDING this. I have ALREADY INFORMED you BEFORE. BUT, like A LOT OF WHAT I SAY TO you, it appears to just 'FALL ON DEAF EARS', as some would say.

Given the situation, I think it is lovely that she expressed her anger.

GREAT.

As I HAVE ALREADY SAID, If you FIND MAKING 'your' wife ANGRY, and MAKING 'her' EXPRESS that ANGER through 'voice tone', 'facial expression', and/or mis/behavior, then NO one here anyway is suggesting that you STOP this way of MISBEHAVING, to 'Us'.

ONCE MORE, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to DO whatever it is that PLEASES you. So, AGAIN, if MAKING 'your' wife ANGRY PLEASES you, then PLEASE CONTINUE ON DOING THIS.

Can you UNDERSTAND 'this' this time?

I understood the first time. But it is not relevant, as far as my wife showing her emotions, in that situations. She made the right choice for us in that situation.

'your' wife was ONLY 'showing her emotions' BECAUSE you were NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for 'your' life and 'your' ways of behaving, or misbehaving.

It was the expression of her anger that helped me let go of a pattern.

AND, it was ONLY you NOT LISTENING to 'your' wife, from the outset, WHY 'your' wife HAD TO EXPRESS 'ANGER'.

Do you UNDERSTAND, now, that IF you LISTENED TO 'your' wife, from the beginning, then 'ANGRY' 'feelings or emotions' would NOT have ARISEN WITHIN 'that body', which were THEN EXPRESSED through, and SHOWN with, 'that body'.

Yes,

GREAT. SO WILL YOU NOW TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for WHAT YOU HAVE DONE here?

but that was not the situation.

So, you SAY, 'Yes', in regards to UNDERSTANDING that IF you had DONE things DIFFERENTLY then 'your' wife would NOT have REACTED the way 'she' DID, BUT THEN you now SAY and CLAIM that that was NOT 'the situation'.

HOW can you UNDERSTAND what is now, supposedly, NOT 'the situation'?

And we are talking about whether her showing her emotions was lovely or not.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Are you, REALLY, going to 'TRY TO' "justify" or "minimize" WHAT YOU DID there, to 'Me'?

LOOK, we ALREADY KNOW that you BELIEVE that 'your' wife GETTING ANGRY and HAVING TO SHOW this ANGER, TO you, BEFORE you even BEGIN to LISTEN TO 'her', you FIND 'lovely'.

I just do NOT.

What I would FIND 'lovely' is IF you STARTED Truly LISTENING TO 'your' wife, in order so that 'she' NEVER HAS TO GET ANGRY WITH you just so you can HEAR what 'she' HAS BEEN TELLING you ALL ALONG.

Did she make the right choice in showing them? Yes.

TO you.

Did you understand this time?

LOL I have CLEARLY SEEN ALL ALONG what you HAVE BEEN 'trying to' "justify" here. But, the ONLY one you are "justifying" TO here IS 'you', "iwannaplato".

Are you YET AWARE that the 'ANGRY' 'feelings' WITHIN 'your' wife ONLY AROSE BECAUSE 'you' were NOT LISTENING TO what was BEING SAID. 'ANGRY' 'feelings' would have NEVER ROSE UP IF you had JUST BEEN LISTENING, and HEARING.

It was part of MY story, which you read, where I implied that and my words would not have made sense otherwise. Yes, I understood.

So, WHY, EXACTLY, do you FIND MAKING 'your' wife BECOME ANGRY and SHOWING ANGER 'lovely'?

Could this be BECAUSE this was just THE WAY 'things' WERE when you were 'growing up', and so have just come to think or BELIEVE that THIS WAY OF REACTING IS 'lovely'?

Could it be BECAUSE when you were in some of those MOST, literally, FORMULATIVE years, and some of the ONLY REACTIONS, or RESPONSES, you got and received, from those who were MEANT TO BE the MOST LOVING ones TO you, were DONE IN ANGER? If so, then could you have, and now continue to ASSOCIATE the ONLY ATTENTION you were REALLY GETTING, was 'lovely' in some sort of 'sense', with the REASON WHY 'that' ATTENTION was so-called 'lovely', was BECAUSE it was, AT LEAST, SOME ATTENTION, which is ALWAYS BETTER than NOT ATTENTION AT ALL, would be, in some sense, 'LOVELY'?

SEE, BECAUSE ATTENTION is, LITERALLY, NEEDED in Life, ANY ATTENTION will ALWAYS BE BETTER than NO ATTENTION AT ALL.

Was it wrong for her to show her emotions, was it unlovely to you that she showed them?

YES, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE.

BUT DO NOT FORGET, what is 'wrong', to 'me', may well be NOT 'wrong', to 'you', EVER.

Would you suggest to her that if she is in a similar situation she should not show them?

LOL
LOL
LOL

you are STILL NOT LISTENING and HEARING. IF I WAS TO SUGGEST absolutely ANY thing to absolutely ANY one here, then 'it' WOULD BE TO 'you', "iwannaplato". And what 'that' SUGGESTION WOULD BE would be to START LISTENING TO and HEARING what 'your' wife is SAYING TO you, SO THAT 'your' wife does NOT GET ANGRY EVER AGAIN.

Because here in the real world, in manifestation, not everything is perfect.

OBVIOUSLY, and 'you', "iwannaplato", as well as 'you', "other" adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, were ACTUAL LIVING PROOF that NOT EVERY thing is perfect.

EVERY thing ELSE, by the way, IS PERFECT.

Habits have formed.

In a way absolutely EVERY thing IS FORMED, through an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.

People make mistakes.

BUT NOT 'your' wife here, TO you, right?

you FIND 'your' wife GETTING ANGRY and SHOWING ANGER, TO you, as being 'LOVELY', right?

We, out here, have to deal with imperfect situastions. It was lovely how she dealt with it.

you KEEP FORGETTING to add the words, 'to me', in regards to 'you'.

Here you seem focused on blame.

What you call 'blame' "others" call 'reason/s'.

If you are not blaming me for a less than perfect situation, then I suggest that you consider your language yet again, because it seems like shifting to focus on what I should have done before the situation is not relevant to whether my wife should or should not have shown her anger or whether it was lovely or not....

If you BELIEVE that you HAVE DONE the BEST thing in this talked about situation, then so be it. you are absolutely FREE to BELIEVE absolutely ANY thing you like or WANT TO.

And that was the context for our discussion. I said anger could be lovely and you wanted to know why, given, it seemed that I thought love could be lovely.

AND, you have explained WHY SHOWING ANGER IS 'lovely' to you in a VERY, VERY NARROWED and TINY PERSPECTIVE of just ONE VERY MINUTE SITUATION of a MUCH LARGER SITUATION.

Is it true...you don't see the facial expression and voice tone as lovely and you judge them as negative?

1. I do NOT 'judge' 'things' as being 'negative' NOR 'positive' here.

Then your communication is much more misleading than even I realized.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The ONLY 'thing' MISLEADING 'you' here has been 'your' VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and/or MISINTERPRETATIONS.

My WORDS STAND ON their OWN.

your MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS, however, is a COMPLETELY OTHER MATTER.

You've said that the fault is yours in communication. I suggest this is one area you are communiating poorly.

I KNOW I am communicating POORLY. ALWAYS HAVE. AND, this is the VERY REASON WHY I AM here.

2. What I do see is that facial expressions and/or voice tones of 'ANGER' would NOT ARISE if 'you', adult human beings, had JUST been LISTENING from the beginning. And, when I say, 'LISTENING', I MEAN Truly LISTENING, which involves ACTUALLY HEARING what is being SAID, as well as what is being MEANT.

And here we are in a world that is not perfect

AND, ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS FOR THIS CAUSED and CREATED 'NON PERFECT world' IS BECAUSE 'you', adult human beings, ARE NOT LISTENING, and NOT HEARING, what IS, LITERALLY, BEING SPELLED OUT and SAID TO, and FOR, you.

and we have habits and make mistakes and worse.

Here we can SEE FURTHER PROOF of just HOW MUCH and HOW OFTEN these adult human beings, back then, would 'TRY TO' "justify" and/or "minimize" their Wrong DOING.

In that world I find anger can be lovely, though yes, it can also be unlovely, as I said earlier.

Okay.

But I am HERE creating A GOAL of Peace AND Harmony WITH and FOR EVERY one, as One.

And, PART of this process involves EXPLAINING HOW and WHY it IS 'you', adult human beings, who HAVE CREATED, and ARE CREATING, in the days when this is being written, this 'NON PERFECT world', which 'you' ALL LIVE IN, and that children HAVE TO ENDURE WITH-(and)-IN, WAS PARTLY CREATED BECAUSE of adult human beings 'TRYING TO' "justify", "minimize", or "rationalize" their Wrong behaviors. EXACTLY LIKE what 'you' ARE DOING here "iwannoplato".

Should we suppress the expression of feelings you do consider lovely to feel?

See it is this type of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, which you are DOING HERE, BEFORE you GAINED and OBTAINED ACTUAL CLARITY WHY you SO FAR ASTRAY, in the Wrong DIRECTION, and OFF TOPIC as well.

I asked a question.

YES YOU DID. But it was ASKED with SOME PRESUMPTION, which CAME FROM a Wrong ASSUMPTION, which you are HOLDING ONTO here.

Now, if you, REALLY, would like me to EXPRESS, CLEARLY, what 'that' Wrong ASSUMPTION IS, EXACTLY, then, HOPEFULLY, by now you KNOW what you NEED TO DO, EXACTLY.

AGAIN, you are, LITERALLY, SHOWING and PROVING how you do NOT LISTEN TO what IS being SAID, and MEANT, and WHY in some feelings of 'ANGER' ARISE.

I asked a question. Should I assume like you just did in relation to me that you are not listening when you don't notice things I have said?

LOL
LOL
LOL

BUT, if I HAVE or HAVE NOT NOTICED the 'things', which you are now CLAIMING here now that I have NOT NOTICED, thee Truth OF, WILL ONLY BE FOUND AND COME-TO-LIGHT IF and WHEN you PROVIDE FURTHER WRITINGS.

Until then I am NOT ASSUMING that you are NOT LISTENING.

By your VERY WORDS you ARE and HAVE ALREADY PROVED that you have NOT BEEN LISTENING.

How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

You have REALLY NOT LISTENED TO what I HAVE BEEN SAYING, and MEANING here.

I asked a question.

AND, I ANSWERED IT, IN and WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS.

How some thing that is 'lovely', like when the feeling of 'ANGER', and thus A SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING, arises WITHIN, becomes 'unlovely' would be liek, for example, when the, 'lovely', feeling of 'ANGER', which OBVIOUSLY DOES ARISE within 'your' wife when you are NOT LISTENING to 'her', (which might be on far more occasions than reported here), becomes 'unlovely', would be like when 'your' wife has easy access to a gun or a knife and SHOOTS or KNIFES you TO DEATH.

See, here you are not listening to me. I said several times 'as a rule.'

AND, to me, there is NO 'rule', and I have ALREADY MENTIONED this, correct?

That you had said the emotion of anger is as a rule unlovely to you when it is expressed.

I have NEVER EVER SAID, NOR IMAGINED, NOR THOUGHT, NOR IMPLIED that 'the emotion of anger is ANY so-called 'rule' unlovely to me when it is expressed'.

What do you do, you find a situation of extreme violence, even though in my post I mention that hitting would be a problem, and here you jump to a gun or knife use to kill me.

'you', "iwannaplato", ASKED ME: How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

SO, I JUST ANSWERED IT. Do you WANT me to ANSWER your QUESTIONS, or NOT?

Now, CAN you SEE and UNDERSTAND MY ANSWER?

If yes, then do you AGREE WITH IT and ACCEPT IT?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I clearly said that I did not always find it lovely. Clearly. And agreed with you when you said it.

What is 'it' that I, supposedly, SAID, which you have supposedly ALREADY AGREED WITH?

Is this PROOF, as you say later in this post, that you regularly don't listen. My goodness, it might be good if you met someone exactly like you.

WHY THEN DID you ASK me THE QUESTION that you DID here?

If you did NOT WANT me to ANSWER it the WAY I DID, then WHAT, EXACTLY, did you WANT, from me?

LOOK "iwannaplato", YOU ASKED ME THE QUESTION: How does something that is lovely, when expressed, become unlovely?

So I TOLD YOU EXACTLY HOW, to me, some 'thing' that you say and call is 'lovely', when expressed, becomes what you say and call 'unlovely'.

I GAVE you ONE EXAMPLE of maybe COUNTLESS OTHER EXAMPLES. But, I GAVE you THE ONE I DID, and about the MOST OBVIOUS ONE, so that you COULD CLEARLY SEE, for and by 'yourself", just HOW, EXACTLY the 'lovely' BECOMES 'unlovely', WHEN expressed, or THROUGH expression.

I will now suggest that if you do NOT want me to provide you with AN ANSWER, which IS OBVIOUS, then JUST ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, INSTEAD.

This is WHEN the 'lovely' SIGN of what NEEDS CHANGING in LIFE becomes 'unlovely', when expressed.

YOU SAID YOU THINK IT IS NOT LOVELY IN ANY SITUATION.

YES I DID, if I recall CORRECTLY.

But, SO WHAT?

Do you see how you did not listen, twisted by implication what I said`?

NO. WILL you CLEAR 'this' UP for us here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

ALL I DID WAS JUST ANSWER THEE QUESTION, which you POSED, and which you ASKED TO me.

What do you think or BELIEVE 'it' IS that I, supposedly, did NOT LISTEN TO here, EXACTLY?

?

Are you YET HEARING, and UNDERSTANDING, 'me', and 'this' here now?

Oh, I hear you Age. Do you hear yourself?

There is NO "yourself".

"yourself" IS an OXYMORON and/or a CONTRADICTION OF TERMS.

As a rule?

As JUST EXPLAINED.

And aren't feelings also their expression?

INTERNAL 'feelings' OR 'emotions' ARE JUST 'emotions'. 'Feelings' are NOT the so-called phrase, 'their expression'.

The phrase was ALSO their expression.

I KNOW. I just SAID, the so-called phrase 'their expression' is NOT 'feelings'. So, in other words, 'feelings' are, ALSO, also NOT 'their expression'.

LOOK, ALL 'emotions' are just 'felt', internally,

No, not just.

LOL OKAY. SO, WHERE, EXACTLY, are 'emotions' ALSO 'felt' if NOT JUST internally?

Emotions are complicated physical processes

This 'complicated' word just about ALWAYS gets USED for AN EXCUSE WHEN 'you', human beings, do NOT YET KNOW some 'thing'.

'Emotions' are NOT 'complicated' things AT ALL, and, the 'physical processes of emotions' is NOT 'complicated' EITHER. I have ALREADY EXPRESSED the ACTUAL PROCESSES, for information.

that affect breathing facial expression voice tone if the person is speaking and more.

ONLY WHEN 'you' EITHER ALLOW them to AFFECT these things, or WHEN 'you' are NOT IN CONTROL ANYMORE.

Oh, and by the way, WHEN one LEARNS TO ACCEPT and TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY, and THEN UNCOVERS WHO and WHAT 'I' REALLY AM, then 'emotions' can BE CONTROLLED ALWAYS. So, what this MEANS IS; emotions do NOT HAVE TO affect 'things' like breathing, facial expressions, nor voice tones, like you are 'TRYING TO' make out they do here.

Why does this natural connection need to be suppressed?

Absolutely NO one here has SAID that the natural connection needs to be suppressed.

Well that's the way to stop what is felt being shown, though it cannot be fully successful given emotional effects on unconscious processes.

LOL "iwannaplator", 'you' REALLY DO HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND here.

But you ALREADY MADE THIS VERY CLEAR when you STATED that; "Emotions ARE 'complicated' physical processes".

Many people do not want to notice emotions because of all the judgment out there, so suppression can be successful in many instances, but this is because of denial and avoidance.

Okay.

Oh, and by the way, one can VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY EXPRESS, the natural connection, JUST, WITH and THROUGH the words, 'I feel angry, because ...'. And, expressing 'this way' will NOT cause ANY of what you would call 'negative consequences'.

LOL.

What does 'LOL' mean or refer to here, EXACTLY?

AND, WHY did you WRITE those letters here, EXACTLY?

Which, by the way, can be a VERY SLOW, and a VERY FRUSTRATING FEELING process. Which I FEEL for 'YOUR' wife.

Oh, I know how she felt on that day. I've even met people who as a rule defend their habits.

REALLY? WHO are THOSE 'people', and WHAT were THEIR HABITS, which you SAY and CLAIM that they 'defend, as a rule'?

Some focus on the other person all the time.

Could that be THEE one who is in a philosophy forum making STATEMENTS and/or CLAIMS about 'things'?

So if one reports what one is experiencing about them, they focus on the person pointing this out.

Is this some 'thing' like WHEN I reported what I have experienced ABOUT 'you', "iwannaplato", and how 'you' do NOT LISTEN and do NOT HEAR what is being SAID to 'you', but 'you' FOCUS on thee One POINTING 'this' OUT?

Or, from YOUR PERSPECTIVE does 'this' ONLY HAPPEN ONE WAY?

It could be through a mass of questions, many of which need not be asked.

NO question is NEEDED to be ASKED.

But, if one Truly KNOWS what they are TALKING ABOUT and CLAIMING, then there is NO question that that one would be AFRAID TO ANSWER, Honestly AND OPENLY I WILL ADD.

From what I have OBSERVED it is ONLY THOSE who DO NOT KNOW what they are ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT do NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS regarding what they SAY and CLAIM. Or, they just WANT TO HIDE SOME 'thing'.

They change the focus to something not relevant.

While "others" CLAIM some 'thing' is 'NOT relevant' ONLY to 'TRY TO' DETRACT or DEFLECT from what WAS BEING POINTED OUT and BEEN SHOWN.

When their ego is on the line, they cannot admit fault.

Which 'you', 'iwannaplato", HAVE PROVEN MANY TIMES ALREADY.

It can even happen online, where it is much easier to pretend one is not having certain reactions.

OR, WHERE one is ASSUMING certain reactions are HAPPENING. Which would be A Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'thing' to DO, REALLY.

Or pretend one is not judging.

Or, WHERE one BELIEVES the "other" is DOING some 'thing', but ACTUALLY they HAVE NO PROOF OF, AT ALL. Or, IF they DID, then CERTAIN HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED 'it'.

Or pretend that they way their are behaving online is not showing their rage or fear.

LOL
LOL
LOL

These 'people', back in these 'days', ACTUALLY BELIEVED that they COULD TELL what was GOING ON, EXACTLY, and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT AT ALL, with A 'writer', and it did NOT matter one iota WHERE nor WHEN that 'writer' was writing FROM, relative to WHERE they WERE.

These human beings could NOT even ASSUME Correctly all of the time what WAS HAPPENING WITHIN "another" even WHEN 'face-to-face' with the "other", but these ones BELIEVE that they can ASSUME CORRECTLY ALL OF THE TIME with WRITTEN WORDS. Which is just FAR MORE ABSURD than it ACTUALLY SOUNDS.

This is HOW MUCH these 'people' ACTUALLY KEPT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, but worse still they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that their VERY OWN ASSUMPTIONS were IRREFUTABLY true, right, AND correct.

A long time ago I might have wanted them to admit what was going on.

SEE, this one STILL BELIEVES that 'its' OWN ASSUMPTIONS could NOT EVER BE POSSIBLY Wrong in ANY WAY, AT ALL.

It would be much easier in real life where they body language would give away the ongoing lie.

LOL SEE HOW this one STILL BELIEVES that 'it' KNOWS, IRREFUTABLY, what the ACTUAL TRUTH IS here. AND, 'it' BELIEVES 'it' SO MUCH, that 'it' has even FOOLED "its" 'self' INTO BELIEVING that if 'it' were 'face-to-face' with the "other" then THERE WOULD BE IRREFUTABLE PROOF to back up and support 'its' PRE-EXISTING ASSUMPTION and BELIEF.

These 'people' REALLY WERE as DELUDED as this one is SHOWING and PROVING here.

But here online people can more easily hide, if not as completely as they seem to think, some specific individuals.

AND, WHY do 'you' NOT NAME 'them'?

Are you 'trying to' HIDE some 'thing' "your" 'self', "iwannaplato"?

ALSO, is this ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHEN some one POINTS OUT some 'thing' that 'you' do, 'you' THEN FOCUS 'your' ATTENTION ONTO the "other", INSTEAD of ONTO 'you', and/or ONTO ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS being USED?

But this is not a task I give myself anymore. Perhaps it will happen. I am not ruling out that in an interaction with me or someone else, they may notice how they are contradicting themselves or how angry they are and are showing it. But it is not a task I give myself.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE MORE, and ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER one who MAKES CLAIMS, but NEVER PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' for CLAIM, but ALSO VERY QUICKLY RUNS AWAY and HIDES UNDER some OTHER EXCUSE NOT TO.

So, INSTEAD of RUNNING AWAY and 'trying to' HIDE "iwannaplato", how about 'you' PROVIDE EXAMPLES of WHERE 'you' ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I or "others" have CONTRADICTED "ourselves"', as well as PROVIDING EXAMPLES of WHERE 'you' ASSUME and/or BELIEVE that I or "others" ARE NOT NOTICING HOW, LOL, 'angry' we REALLY ARE and ARE showing 'it'.

This is MORE FUNNIER and ABSURD as it goes along.

WHERE are 'we', I or them, SHOWING 'anger', WHERE 'you' can NOTICE 'it' but 'we', supposedly, can NOT?

'you' REALLY SAY the Truly WEIRDEST 'things' sometimes "iwannaplato".

If one was NOT MISTAKEN 'you' appear to be QUITE UPSET, and/or ANGRY BECAUSE I have just POINTED OUT and SHOWN HOW 'you' MAKE 'your' wife ANGRY, and HOW you FIND this 'lovely'.

Or, have you STILL NOT RECOGNIZED and NOTICED this Fact, YET?

1. I NEVER think NOR say what 'you', "another", SHOULD DO or SHOULD NOT DO.

2. I live by one 'rule', or better, worded one 'lore' that I live by. I have NO 'rules' NOR 'laws' for "others".

3. 'Anger' can be SHOWN in ANY way that one thinks or feels that 'it' 'should' be SHOWN. 'you' are OLD ENOUGH to KNOW what is Right and BEST, correct?

4. I will AGAIN suggest you SEEK OUT and GAIN and OBTAIN CLARITY BEFORE you even BEGIN to PRESUME 'things'. That way you will NOT express these Truly Wrong and ABSURD, to me, CONCLUSIONS that you have and/or HOLD.

As you would say 'I said it seems'. It seems here like you jumped to the conclusion that I jumped to a conclusion, whereas I said 'it seems'. Which of course leaves room for you to explain.

And I WILL EXPLAIN.

What you ACTUALLY WROTE was: It's that you have it, it seems, as a rule, that anger should not be shown.

AND, what I just did was SAY and EXPLAIN, more or less;

I do NOT have 'it', in ANY way, shape NOR form, that anger should NOT be shown. For the REASONS GIVEN.

I will ALSO remind you that it WILL BE BETTER for you if you SOUGHT OUT and GAINED CLARITY BEFORE MAKING ANY ASSUMPTION AT ALL. For example, if you SOUGHT OUT and CLARIFIED IF I would say or claim that anger should not be shown FIRST, then this WHOLE PROCESS could have be OVER and DONE WITH a LONG TIME AGO.

When I ask questions, you tell me I am making assumptions.

WHEN have I TOLD you you are making assumptions WHEN you ask questions?

If you do NOT PROVIDE ANY, then, AGAIN, you ARE RUNNING AWAY and HIDING, ONCE MORE.

When I say, 'it seems' you tell me I have expressed truly wrong absurd conclusions.

Well INSTEAD of SAYING 'it seems like, ...", and you JUST ASKED FOR CLARITY, FIRST, then you WOULD NOT SAY what is Truly Wrong and/or ABSURD, like above.

It seems like you are very human.

What ELSE could the 'you' word refer to, EXACTLY?

Anger has a set of physiological facets. These are present even when people suppress, try to hide, repress the expression. To a lesser degree, but they are present, especially for those who have long paid attention. Are those facets of the physiology of anger that show the emotion bad, but the ones that are less easy to see/hear...those can be lovely?

Well considering the Fact that this is NOTHING that I have thought, let alone SAID, and EXPRESSED, WHY do you consider you CAME TO and ARRIVED AT 'this CONCLUSION'?

Ibid.

Also, it is EXTREMELY and SIMPLY to JUST EXPRESS ALL 'emotions' through WORDS, ALONE.

I don't think you understand the physiology of emotions as explained earlier.

I wonder if you have EVER THOUGHT ABOUT HOW, EXACTLY, emotions are EXPRESSED in books and in writings.

How and I suppose why did you decide that if you did?

Have you REALLY NOT YET NOTICED just HOW OFTEN you make YOUR QUESTIONS based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ONLY, and that THOSE ASSUMPTIONS could be completely and utterly False, Wrong, or Incorrect, from the outset?

I guess when you ask questions I should assume that you have already reached conclusions and they are not really questions.

SEE here, ONCE AGAIN, how this one did NOT read what I wrote WITHOUT MAKING ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, and WITHOUT JUMPING TO ANOTHER CONCLUSION.

That's not relevant to the issue of whether it was lovely or not.

LOL If this is, supposedly, NOT 'relevant', to you, then so be it.

Do you WANT us to just IGNORE ALL of it?

As you would say...I never said that.

What is the 'that' here word referring to, EXACTLY? And,

What do the 'not relevant' words here refer to, EXACTLY, if NOT what that term was referring to to NOT be ignored?

IF you SEE "others" EXPRESSING 'their ANGER', TO you, as 'lovely', then GREAT.

The MORE 'we' SHOW and EXPRESS 'our ANGER', TO you, then the MORE 'lovely' you WILL FIND these INTERACTIONS, correct?

How could you have possibly missed that I said, for example, that there are a range of reactions I have to anger or my talking about 'as a rule' or my talking about a specific situation where I found it lovely?

But I NEVER MISSED 'that'.

I just POINTED OUT and SAID that IF you SEE "others" EXPRESSING 'their ANGER', TO you, as 'lovely', then that IS GREAT, FOR 'you', AND THEN ASKED, IF the MORE 'we' SHOW and EXPRESS 'our ANGER', TO you, then is it correct that then the MORE 'lovely' you WILL FIND these INTERACTIONS?

Do you, REALLY, need "others" around you to GET angry or SHOW anger BEFORE you will LISTEN and HEAR them?

I listen and hear.

LOL

You have just gone through a WHOLE THREAD of SHOWING and PROVING OTHERWISE.

Nope, but you sure seem to have.

OKAY. To 'you' I SURE seem to HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING and HEARING 'you'. So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that it SURE seems that I have NOT HEARD here?

But I have NEVER EVER SAID this EVEN ONCE.

But you do have a HABIT of NOT LISTENING.

And, for FURTHER PROOF of 'this' 'we' could ASK 'your' wife, correct? Or, do you think or BELIEVE that 'she' would say otherwise?

Further proof? My wife would not, as they said once, give you the time of day.[/quote]

But I SAID, VERY CLEARLY, 'we' and NOT just 'i', NOR 'I'.

And, who and/or what is 'they', that ONCE said, 'give you the time of day'?

She wonders, lol, why I spend so much time communicating with someone with so little self-insight.

Do 'you' talk to 'her' ABOUT 'me', and, EXPLAIN that I have SO LITTLE self-insight?

If yes, then WHY?

And, who and/or what IS the 'self' ACTUALLY?

That's a direct quote.

So, 'you' MUST TELL 'her' ABOUT 'me'. Now I am WONDERING WHY 'you' would spend SO MUCH TIME communicating WITH "others" ABOUT 'me'.

Or, does 'she' READ 'our' communications "iwannaplato"?

If yes, then WHY does 'she' NOT reply AT ALL "her" 'self'?

She also specifically pointed out all your judgments and assumptions in part of this post, ones that you make while pointing the finger at me.

REALLY?

Are EITHER of 'you two' BRAVE ENOUGH to POINT OUT and SHOW, EXACTLY, WHERE I HAVE, supposedly, MADE 'judgments' AND 'assumptions', in part of this post?

After all it should be a VERY EASY and SIMPLE 'thing' for 'you', "iwannaplato" TO DO 'now'. Especially considering the Fact that 'she' HAS ALREADY, SUPPOSEDLY, POINTED OUT ALL of 'them', SPECIFICALLY, TO 'you'.

BUT, WHETHER 'you' RUN AWAY and 'try to' HIDE, or DO ACTUALLY PROVIDE 'them' FOR 'us', 'we' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

She doesn't suffer fools gladly.

HOW does 'she' SHOW and EXPRESS 'this' EXACTLY?

Through ANGER, sometimes?

Does 'she' GET ANGRY WITH 'fools', sometimes?

I mentioned a situation where she expressed anger because her bringing up something without showing me anger had not instantly changed my habit.

Yes, we CLEARLY SAW and HEARD 'that' ABOVE here.

I know that you, when someone close to you, brings up a habit of yours and says I am angry because....
you change that habit instantly.

HOW do 'you' KNOW 'this'?

AND, could 'you' BE Wrong here, AS WELL?

Or, is this NOT a possibility, in "iwannaplato's" 'world'?

Since I didn't change from those things she said earlier, you considered this PROOF that I was someone who did not listen in general.

NO I NEVER.

The PROOF that you do NOT LISTEN, in general, can be CLEARLY SEEN and RECOGNIZED throughout this thread AND forum.

The Fact that you do NOT LISTEN to 'your' OWN wife just GAVE 'this' FURTHER WEIGHT and SUPPORT.

I'd point this out as you doing what you keep accusing others of doing, but I am afraid your past behavior has less me to believe this would be a waste of my time.

AND, if this is what you BELIEVE, then there, to you, could be NO OTHER POSSIBILITY NOR WAY.

So, what an example of an instance when you or someone you were in the company of got angry and you thought it was absolutely lovely?

WHY 'they' just TELL ME in WORDS, 'I feel 'angry', because of ...'.

And, by the way, it is USUALLY BECAUSE of 'what i have done'.

Which, a LOT of the time, BEFORE, was also for NOT LISTENING and NOT HEARING what "others" were ACTUALLY MEANING, in what they were ACTUALLY SAYING.

But I have since then LEARNED HOW TO HEAR, and LISTEN TO, what is BEING MEANT in what is BEING SAID.

I don't think you understand what a specific instance is.

I do NOT think you REALIZE that you did NOT even ASK for a 'specific instance'.

You just SAID, 'an example of AN instance'.

Also, I just NOTICED that I did NOT even answer your QUESTION here.

So, to ANSWER your QUESTION. I have NEVER thought that 'you' NOR 'I' BEING ANGRY was EVER 'lovely', let alone 'absolutely lovely'.

I do NOT recall EVER even having the thought that GETTING ANGRY was even NECESSARY in Life, let alone 'lovely'.

Oh, and by the way, 'lovely' would NEVER have been a word that I would have USED BEFORE in relation to the 'anger' or 'angry' words.

So, does this all mean you never express anger here?

LOL

HERE is a GREAT EXAMPLE of HOW from just one Wrong PRESUMPTION, at the outset, ALL FOLLOWING PRESUMPTIONS can lead to one absolutely VERY False, Wrong and/or Incorrect CONCLUSION.

If I ask questions, they are conclusions. When you ask questions they are for clarification, even though your questions are based on assumptions also. [/quote]

ONLY WHEN you PROVIDE the ASSUMED ASSUMPTION/S of mine, then we HAVE some 'thing' to ACTUALLY LOOK AT and DISCUSS. Until then please REFRAIN from ACCUSING me of doing some 'thing' IN THE PAST.

If you FIND FAULT or FLAW in my writings, then BRING them OUT WHEN you SEE and NOTICE them, and NOT LATER ON. That way you will NOT be LOOKED AT as BEING DECEPTIVE.

Mentioning them AFTERWARDS helps NO one.

AND, BECAUSE your QUESTION here was SO MISLEADING, and FULL OF PRESUMPTIONS, I ANSWERED 'it' HOW I DID.

So, if you READ, LISTENED TO, SAW, and HEARD MY ANSWER, then you would ALREADY KNOW that MY ANSWER is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you were ASKING here.

Or if you did show it, you would feel this is unlovely of you?

Well considering that there are ONLY WORDS being SHOWED, and EXPRESSED, here, in this forum, and the WORDS, EXPRESSED, are of ABSOLUTE Truth, then this, to me, could NEVER be so-called 'unlovely'. Unless, OF COURSE, one SAID and EXPRESSED that they were GOING TO do some 'thing', so-called 'unlovely', then this THREAT, expressed ANGRILY, would be 'unlovely'.

Ah, so when you said that thing about the ABSOLUTE PROOF in relation to me that was THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

WHAT ARE you TALKING ABOUT here?

Fine, I appreciate you being so honest about your habits of mind.

AND WHAT ARE you TALKING ABOUT here, AS WELL?

I have interacted enough with you Age for my interest.

OKAY, you HINTED AT THIS BEFORE, BUT you CONTINUED ON ANYWAY.

So, it does not matter what you say to me from here on out. I will not read it.

So here we have ANOTHER one RUNNING AWAY and HIDING, from WHAT I ACTUALLY POINTED OUT and SHOWED ABOUT 'them', which they DID NOT LIKE, as well as RUNNING AWAY and HIDING instead of continually even 'trying to' just backing up and supporting what they SAY and CLAIM here.

This is the absolute truth about my future behavior.

We WILL JUST HAVE TO, TO SEE.

I say this so that it is easier for you to separate out what you say here from what you actually notice about yourself.

LOL

So, YOUR EXCUSE for RUNNING AWAY and HIDING is BECAUSE of 'me' and what is LAUGHABLY, supposedly, EASIER for 'me'. LOL

These are clearly two very different things. Perhaps you'll notice that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing and not just as an exception.

BUT it IS 'you', "iwannaplato", who is DOING EXACTLY what 'you' ARE ACCUSING "others" of DOING here.

Perhaps you won't. Perhaps you will learn something about yourself, perhaps you won't.

you MIGHT PERHAPS LISTEN, but you OBVIOUSLY can NOT NOW.

Unless, OF COURSE, this is ANOTHER LIE like your OTHER one OBVIOUSLY WAS.

I hope you'll take some time to be honest with yourself, because most people are going to avoid you, especially those for whom your behavior is transparently hypocritical

AND, for ALL of those whom would like to CLAIM that MY BEHAVIOR is, laughably, TRANSPARENTLY HYPOCRITICAL, how about 'you', ALL, back up and support YOUR CLAIMS with some ACTUAL EVIDENCE and better still some ACTUAL PROOF. Or, are you just going to RUN AWAY and HIDE like "iwannaplato" IS GOING TO here, now?

SAYING, 'you are transparently hypocritical', while you have got 'YOUR BACKED TURNED' and RUNNING OFF IN FEAR and SCARED, while NOT PROVIDING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' is NOT EXACTLY how philosophy forums work BEST.

rather than just odd or annoying which is why the mass will avoid you for the wrong reasons.

Ah, so ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, we have ANOTHER one WHOSE VIEWS and BELIEFS are the ONLY true, right, AND correct ones, and if ANY one else, or EVEN THE MASS have VARYING or DIFFERENT VIEWS and/or BELIEFS, then it is THEM WHO IS WRONG.

WHY is YOUR REASON for RUNNING AWAY and HIDING "iwannaplato" the, so-called, RIGHT REASON, but the "others" is the WRONG REASON?

WHY is it that you ALWAYS KNOW what is RIGHT here, and if absolutely ANY one has an OPPOSING VIEW, then 'it' is WRONG?

And for your sake and hers or his, if you have a partner, I can only hope you do not interact with her or him this way.

WHY? AND,

WHAT WAY, EXACTLY?

This habit or set of habits they could preclude ever having intimacy with an equal.

I have NO IDEA NOR CLUE what ANY of this is SAYING, REFERRING TO, NOR MEANING.

May you find what you want, Age.

I HAVE ALREADY GOT WHAT I WANTED, FROM 'you', "iwannaplato".
[/quote]

This must be some kind of record...

[Age]

This must be some kind of record...

For robots, or for human beings?