Name that fallacy...

[Age]

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

Well, that's pretty interesting.

I still stick to my general policy. If a lifeform is communicating with me, I won't think of it as an it but rather a who.

I understand where you are coming from, however, does that also apply to a cat that is communicating to you that she is hungry?

Can a cat or a dog, etc., truly be considered as being a "who"?

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

Well, in light of what was just revealed to you about the alleged presence of a channeled entity, what in the world makes you assume that the "real" Age will be responding to any of this?

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)

I'm actually open to this kind of situation being real. But some of these entities, well, just cause they're disembodied entities, doesn't mean they're wise. But some of them sure think they are.

I personally don't believe in any sort of possession by disembodied entities.

AND, as I CONTINUALLY SAY, and sometimes POINT OUT and PROVE WITH 'these posters' here, while one is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then 'that one' is NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN and SEE the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, if and when 'that Truth' counters or is in opposition of what one IS BELIEVING is true.

'This one' ALSO BELIEVES that 'you' WILL HAVE TO WAIT until 'your DEATH' BEFORE 'you' CAN, and WILL, FIND OUT the ACTUAL and REAL TRUTH.

Indeed, I don't believe that any mind (be it embodied or disembodied) can gain direct access and control over any other mind.

BUT 'you' BELIEVE that there ARE MANY 'minds', right?

Our minds are completely separate and autonomous relative to each other, even relative to God.
_______

Who and/or what IS 'the thing', which HAS or OWNS 'our minds', and/or who and/or what does the 'our' word REFER TO, EXACTLY?

[Age]

I understand where you are coming from, however, does that also apply to a cat that is communicating to you that she is hungry?

Yeah, I don't really think of animals as its.

NOT MANY of 'you', human beings, did think of people and other animals as 'its'.

One of the VERY REASONS WHY I STARTING USING the 'it' word when REFERRING TO 'human beings' was to MAKE some of 'you' THINK and PONDER MORE.

AS IN, 'Why do 'you', human beings, think of "yourselves" as being BETTER, or MORE THAN, other 'its/things'?

What, ACTUALLY, happens to 'your' 'self-esteem' if, and when, 'you' get named or labeled as an 'it', or a 'thing'?

Can a cat or a dog, etc., truly be considered as being a "who"?

I do.

Here 'we' can BETTER SEE just how DIFFERENTLY 'these DIFFERENT human beings', BACK THEN, would LOOK AT, and thus SEE, 'the world' AROUND 'them'.

Well, in light of what was just revealed to you about the alleged presence of a channeled entity, what in the world makes you assume that the "real" Age will be responding to any of this?

I'm not sure what the real Age is.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, NEITHER did the other posters here, AS WELL.

I just mean, what the poster called Age will say. Sure, he may not say anything. You seem to know more about him that I do. Or, her, I guess.

AGAIN, what seems, or appears, TO 'you', is NOT necessarily true NOR right AT ALL.

From what I have ascertained so far, 'you', "iwannaplato", are FAR CLOSER TO KNOWING 'me' BETTER than "seeds" is. But 'this' is ONLY BECAUSE 'you' LOOK FAR MORE AFIELD and have a FAR MORE OPEN perspective of 'things'.

I personally don't believe in any sort of possession by disembodied entities.

OK.

Indeed, I don't believe that any mind (be it embodied or disembodied) can gain direct access and control over any other mind. Our minds are completely separate and autonomous relative to each other, even relative to God.

OK

[Age]

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

Well, that's pretty interesting.

I still stick to my general policy. If a lifeform is communicating with me, I won't think of it as an it but rather a who.

I understand where you are coming from, however, does that also apply to a cat that is communicating to you that she is hungry?

Can a cat or a dog, etc., truly be considered as being a "who"?

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

Well, in light of what was just revealed to you about the alleged presence of a channeled entity, what in the world makes you assume that the "real" Age will be responding to any of this?

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)

I'm actually open to this kind of situation being real. But some of these entities, well, just cause they're disembodied entities, doesn't mean they're wise. But some of them sure think they are.

I personally don't believe in any sort of possession by disembodied entities.

Indeed, I don't believe that any mind (be it embodied or disembodied) can gain direct access and control over any other mind. Our minds are completely separate and autonomous relative to each other, even relative to God.
_______

When 'you' SAY and WRITE, 'even relative to God', does this MEAN that TO 'you' there IS A God, "seeds"?

If yes, then WHY could 'It' NOT 'channel' Itself through 'you', human beings?

[Age]

Or, do 'you' NOT have 'confirmation biases' "yourself"?

Of course I do, Age.

GREAT. THANK 'you' FOR ACKNOWLEDGING 'this ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Fact, and Truth'.

But I haven't presented myself as free from them like you have.

Could 'this' VIEW of YOURS here be the RESULT OF a 'confirmation bias'?

Or, is 'this' NOT POSSIBLE, TO 'you'?

A confirmation bias is the tip of the iceberg of beliefs.

Thus, ANOTHER REASON WHY I ONLY HAVE and USE One BELIEF ONLY.

One sees (can have too strong a tendency to see) what one believes.

YES, VERY True.

And, CONVERSELY, if one does NOT have ANY BELIEFS, then 'they' are NOT SO INFLUENCED TO 'SEE' PARTICULAR 'things'.

And you have told me that you have no, well, one belief. You present yourself as being transcendent.

Now 'this' is A GREAT 'thing', which I HAD NOT thought OF BEFORE.

THANK 'you' for, LITERALLY, SHINING MORE LIGHT ON, and THROUGH, what IS HAPPENING and OCCURRING here. Even if 'you' have NOT YET FULLY RECOGNIZED what 'you' HAVE ACTUAL DONE here, FOR 'us'.

And is seeds right that you used to claim you helped people write the Bible and have you earlier made claims to be the deity?

WHY are 'you' USING the past tense 'used to' words here?

Also, 'you' ARE the word 'you' WITH 'I' here. Which leads all to quickly to VERY Wrong AND False CONCLUSIONS.

A LOT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, and UNDERSTOOD, FIRST, BEFORE what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, BECOMES Truly COMPREHENDED, and UNDERSTOOD.

But, some 'things' do TAKE TIME, as some would say.

So, again, there could be other reasons than the only one you presented for people reacting as they did.

There MAY WELL BE. BUT, we will NEVER KNOW, FOR SURE, UNTIL 'these people' HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION here, WITH 'me'. But, OBVIOUSLY, this IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN 'they' have ALREADY ADMITTED that 'they' do NOT READ what I WRITE and/or WILL NOT CONVERSE WITH 'me'.

BUT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, what I HAVE SEEN and OBSERVED is that WHEN I POINT OUT and SHOW their Truly ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and/or CLAIMS, and especially when I EXPLAIN WHY 'they' ARE, what 'they' ARE, then this is WHEN MOST CHOOSE TO REACT the way that 'they' DO and IGNORE 'me'.

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE I NEED TO LEARN here?

It depends on what you and/or what you think you are and what you are trying to do.

Will 'you' give ANY examples of what 'you' think or BELIEVE I NEED TO LEARN, on some of the VARYING DIFFERENT 'depends' here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if you are a disembodied spirit, you might have a lot to learn.

WHY?

Do 'you' BELIEVE that a so-called 'disembodied spirit' could NOT exist?

Let me know about what seed passed on to me about your past as ken. True? Not? Partially.

If 'the words', which "seeds" PASSED ON, TO 'you', were MINE, EXACTLY, then, for 'now', it would NOT matter if I ACKNOWLEDGED that 'they' were True, or NOT, or PARTIALLY TRUE, BECAUSE how 'you' ARE INTERPRETATING 'those words' WILL AFFECT the way 'you' THEN LOOK AT and SEE MY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

For example, if I was to SAY that what "seeds" PASSED ON was true, but 'you', and/or 'seeds', BELIEVED that so ALLEGED and SO-CALLED 'disembodied spirit' could NOT exist, then 'you', and/or "seeds", could TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT, COMPLETELY, EXACTLY 'what' WAS ACTUALLY MEANT. And 'this' is WITHOUT even going INTO ALL of 'the OTHER words', which I ACTUALLY SAID, and ACTUALLY MEANT.

WHY do 'you' NOT just TELL 'me' what 'you' think, BELIEVE, or IMAGINE I NEED TO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, here, EXACTLY?

I don't know exactly. But it seems to bother you when I act like you.

I would NOT USE the 'bother' word. BUT, BECAUSE, I CAN back up AND support what I ACTUALLY SAY and CLAIM, KNOW the IMPORTANCE of CURIOSITY and BEING OPEN and Honest, and LOVE TO BE QUESTIONED and CHALLENGED IS the REASON WHY I ALLUDE TO 'things'. SEE, I AM LOOKING FOR 'those' who ALSO have the SAME ATTRIBUTES.

WHEREAS, 'you' ALLUDE TO 'things', BUT WHEN I QUESTION, and/or CHALLENGE, 'you' OVER 'them' 'you' appear to SHOW that ACTUALLY 'you' REALLY DO NOT YET KNOW, what 'you' just ALLUDE TO.

So, there are slight feelings of frustration, INSTEAD, which do arise, sometimes, AFTER 'you' have SHOWN that ACTUALLY 'you' ARE NOT ABLE TO back up AND support 'your' ALLEGATIONS and/or CLAIMS here.

SEE, IF 'you' COULD, THEN 'you' could have BEEN A TREMENDOUS HELP here

BUT, SHOWING just HOW OFTEN people, BACK THEN, would CLAIM 'things', and/or MAKE ACCUSATIONS, which 'they' could NOT 'stand behind' IS ALSO HELPING here, ACTUALLY.

Also, did 'you' NOTICE that JUST MAYBE the 'bias' that 'you' HAVE here maybe a False and Incorrect one, but which 'your' OWN 'confirmation biases' has NOT been ALLOWING 'you' TO SEE 'this'?

I'm not interested in being a host for you. You seem to need hosts.

So-called 'hosts' in relation TO 'what', EXACTLY?

It's a bit like self-doubt. (which is different from self-awarensess).

BUT if I CAN back up AND support what I SAY I CAN, then there is NO self-doubt'.

Thus, ANOTHER REASON WHY I ONLY BELIEVE in One 'thing', ONLY.

Or the plaguing voice in the brain. Or guilt?

Which 'you' seem to be SPEAKING OF, and ABOUT, FROM A KNOWING perspective, right?

These things can't really be alive on their own. They need a host to carry them around.

So, are 'you' ALLEGING here, that 'I' NEED 'hosts'?

I don't know if you are that, just that you act like one. It's a parasitical relationship.

Okay. BUT WHY DO 'we' CONTINUALLY END UP HAVING TO LOOK AT 'your JUDGMENTAL VIEWS' OF and ABOUT 'me', rather than END UP DISCUSSING the ACTUAL WORDS that I PUT DOWN IN FRONT OF 'you', ONLY?

Could you clarify your relationship with ken and the bible writers and God?

"ken" was just ANOTHER username or label here. EXACTLY LIKE ALL the OTHER ones ARE. Some 'posters' here like to BRING UP 'this' VERY PURPOSEFUL CHANGE of labels, in the HOPE that doing so will DISCREDIT 'me' somehow, in some way.

As for CLARIFYING, and UNDERSTANDING, 'my' relationship with "ken", "other writers", and God, 'you' would FIRST NEED to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW WHO and WHAT these words REFER TO, EXACTLY.

AND, 'you' ARE NOT 'there' or 'here' YET, right?

[Iwannaplato]

NOT MANY of 'you', human beings, did think of people and other animals as 'its'.

One of the VERY REASONS WHY I STARTING USING the 'it' word when REFERRING TO 'human beings' was to MAKE some of 'you' THINK and PONDER MORE.

1) placing yourself outside the category of human beings
2) taking a dominance position in every discussion: one that is palpable and so far unwarrented, given how ineffective this communication is.
3) assuming I needed to be treated in this way

Can a cat or a dog, etc., truly be considered as being a "who"?

I do.

Here 'we' can BETTER SEE just how DIFFERENTLY 'these DIFFERENT human beings', BACK THEN, would LOOK AT, and thus SEE, 'the world' AROUND 'them'.

Here we see that I did not need to be referred to as it. But you avoid correcting yourself, for some, reason, and continue to take the dominant position and consider yourself to have the correct overview in any interaction, even on those rare occasions when you can admit error, you admit within a context where you claim that higher ground.

Well, in light of what was just revealed to you about the alleged presence of a channeled entity, what in the world makes you assume that the "real" Age will be responding to any of this?

I'm not sure what the real Age is.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, NEITHER did the other posters here, AS WELL.

I don't know if Age knows what Age is.

I just mean, what the poster called Age will say. Sure, he may not say anything. You seem to know more about him that I do. Or, her, I guess.

AGAIN, what seems, or appears, TO 'you', is NOT necessarily true NOR right AT ALL.

Including to you.

[Iwannaplato]

AND, let 'us' NOT FORGET, 'Who am 'I'?' IS 'the QUESTION' that 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, WAS a QUESTION still being ASKED, and WONDERED UPON.

For some of 'us', however, the proper AND Correct ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS ALREADY KNOWN, and WELL AS UNDERSTOOD I will add.

How allusive.

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

I'm open to this, though closed to being called an 'it' by him or it as the case may be.

And, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to be CLOSED to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

Yes, this communication sounds like it is granting that freedom. Hopefully you are merely noting.

Also noted is that 'you', ONCE MORE, referred to a life form communicating with 'you' as, an 'it'.

In the hypothetical situation where you identify as a thing.

You seem not to understand what conditional language is.

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)

I'm actually open to this kind of situation being real. But some of these entities, well, just cause they're disembodied entities, doesn't mean they're wise. But some of them sure think they are.

While some human beings think that they are SURELY wiser.

What position and overview and entity takes can make their communication and use/interaction with people very dangerous, though sometimes it is limited to merely being very rude.

Nice allusive post taken as a whole.

Is there any truth to your having used the name ken in past positing here? if so, what? Is there any truth that the entity or person here calling himself Age thinks he spoke/communicated with the writers of the Bible?

[Age]

And, WHO and/or WHAT is "age", EXACTLY?

You tell me.

SO, 'you' do NOT ANSWER 'my' QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you', but 'you' TELL 'me', demanding, 'I' TELL 'you' WHO and/or WHAT "age" IS, EXACTLY.

'This' seems VERY CONTRADICTORY.

WHY do 'you' NOT just A CLARIFYING QUESTION, INSTEAD.

'you' REALLY do NOT LIKE ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, do 'you' "iwannaplato"?

If this IS TRUE, then could this be, for example, THE RESULT of what HAPPENS TO one AFTER 'they' have been LAUGHED AT, RIDICULED, HUMILIATED, and/or JUDGED one TOO MANY TIMES, FOR just ASKING QUESTIONS, PREVIOUSLY?

I answered the question, now more questions come.

BECAUSE OF the Truly USELESS, or INAPPROPRIATE, ANSWER/S.

Now, I will, AGAIN, suggest that if one is NOT YET ABLE TO back up AND support 'their CLAIMS', then do NOT make 'their CLAIMS' PUBLIC, and especially in a 'philosophy forum', where I would EXPECT the 'posters' who enter ALREADY WOULD KNOW and EXPECT to BE QUESTIONED, and/or CHALLENGED, OVER 'their BELIEFS and CLAIMS'.

You have much more information about yourself. Let me know. You seem to think your approach is the fastest way. But here you are asking me about yourself.

My so-called 'approach' can only ever be the FASTEST WAY WHEN EVERY one in THE DISCUSSION IS Truly OPEN, Honest, AND CURIOS.

Now, if 'you' do NOT like to, or will NOT, just ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO 'you', then 'this' is CERTAINLY NOT the so-called 'fastest way' AT ALL.

If 'you' recall correctly, I ASKED 'you' if calling 'you' an 'it' harmed, hurt, or offended 'you', "iwannaplato".

'you' replied that given WHO 'this' was coming from, then no, (at this time of communication).

Now, BECAUSE 'you' USED the words 'given who it is coming from' can be inferred as 'you' KNOW, EXACTLY, 'who' 'it is coming from', I JUST QUESTIONED 'you' to SEE IF 'you' ACTUALLY DID KNOW. OBVIOUSLY, 'your' following responses SHOW and REVEAL 'you' DID NOT.

So, that IS WHY 'I' was ASKING 'you' ABOUT so-called "myself".

Now that 'you' have SHOWN and PROVEN that ACTUALLY 'you' HAVE NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to 'WHO' 'these words' are ACTUALLY COMING FROM, and have ASKED NO QUESTIONS AT ALL SEEKING CLARITY, 'we' can MOVE ALONG, now.

Also, if some "other" one or 'thing' PERCEIVED to be 'dehumanizing' 'you', "iwannaplato", THEN would 'you' somehow feel harmed, hurt, or offended, in some way?

I'd prefer not to be referred to as an it.

Ah okay. 'This NOT wanting to be referred to as 'it' is A PREFERENCE', which 'this one' HAS and is HOLDING ONTO, for some YET RECOGNIZED and/or KNOWN REASON.

If you need more information to respect that, well, you will continue to need more information about that.

That 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED, and thus PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT if 'you' feel in some way somewhat 'harmed', 'hurt', or 'offended' being calling an 'it' WILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED. But, at least 'now' 'we' KNOW that 'you' just prefer NOT be to be referred to as 'it'. WHY, EXACTLY, will REMAIN 'a mystery'.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

1. 'it' can be just ANOTHER word for 'person'.

Not at the time this is being written.

Do 'you' PERCEIVE "yourself" to be THE SPEAKER, or THE WRITER, FOR absolutely EVERY one, at the time when this is being written?

You seem to think you are that.[/quote]

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' WILL NOT JUST ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION being ASKED, FOR CLARITY.

OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES, TO 'you'.

Okay, fair enough. 'your' USE of the 'if' word there was just ANOTHER SUGGESTION/CONJECTURE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could ALSO be False, Wrong, Inaccurate and/or Incorrect, AS WELL.

Yes, just like your saying that 'it' can refer to another person, especially in the case where you are addressing that person. That was you speaking for everyone,

Was it?

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN TO PRESUME such A 'thing'?

saying that it can be, period.

Well IF 'it' COULD BE FOR 'one', then WHY COULD 'it' NOT BE FOR ALL, here?

It was also a conjecture that could be wrong.

REALLY?

If yes, then WILL 'you' SHOW and EXPLAIN HOW and WHY?

If no, then, AGAIN, WHY NOT?

As I CONTINUALLY SAY and POINT OUT, I MUCH PREFER TO JUST LOOK AT and DISCUSS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth INSTEAD, and ONLY.

Yes, I noticed.

SO WHY THEN do 'you' BRING UP and INTRODUCED PRESUMPTIONS/ASSUMPTIONS, which COULD BE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect?

Well 'this' IS A VERY USELESS response, especially considering the Fact that the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, and even the so-called "expert ones" cou NOT even come up with an AGREED UPON definition of (the word) 'time', itself.

It wasn't a very useful question, but I did my best to answer it.

Are 'you' SURE that 'that QUESTION' was NOT VERY USEFUL?

Are you sure it was useful?

YES, VERY MUCH SO.

In Fact are 'you' even SURE of what the ACTUAL INTENTION WAS and STILL IS BEHIND 'that QUESTION'?

Are you sure of your own intentions, or might the ego-dystonic ones be hard for you to face?

I KNOW the EXACT INTENTION I CAME INTO 'this forum' WITH, and STILL HAVE.

So, YES I AM SURE of 'my' OWN INTENTIONS, here.

Now, 'you' talking ABOUT some so-called "ego-dystonic intentions", as though 'you', "yourself", ONCE AGAIN, KNOW what 'you' ARE talking ABOUT. So, TO SEE if 'you' ACTUALLY DO, or NOT, 'what' are the so-called and ALLEGED "ego-dystonic intentions" here, EXACTLY, which 'you' REFERRED TO?

JUST MAYBE the ACTUAL Truth here IS NOT just that 'you' can NOT so-call 'face' 'your CLAIMS', but, ACTUALLY, 'you' MAKE 'them' WITHOUT even KNOWING what EXISTS to back up AND support 'your CLAIMS'. Which IS, EXACTLY, HOW 'the human ego' WITHIN 'you', adult human beings, ACTUALLY WORKS, and 'what' I HAVE BEEN BRINGING-TO-LIGHT, SHOWING, and REVEALING here.

NOT being ABLE TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTION, and thus NOT being ABLE TO back up AND support, 'one's CLAIMS, SHOWS and REVEALS just HOW MUCH 'these adult human beings' WERE being 'ego-driven', as some would say.

REALLY?

Here we have ANOTHER CLAIM.

Yes, and you response is a claim.

YES, and VERY MUCH SO. It is ALSO A CLAIM, which I COULD and WILL STAND BEHIND. Like the OTHER CLAIMS I SAY and MAKE in 'this forum' here.

OK.

YET, let 'us' SEE what ACTUAL response 'we' get here when I ASK 'it' to PROVIDE ANY or ALL of the SAID and CLAIMED 'false assumptions', which 'you', "iwannaplato" think or BELIEVE I have made here?

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY "iwannaplato"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I have done this before.

If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE so.

But by CLAIMING 'this' are 'you' now SUGGESTING that 'you' WILL NOT here now?

It's quite clear.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ARE CLAIMING some 'thing', of which 'you' will PROVIDE NO ACTUAL PROOF FOR, nor OF.

'This' DOING sounds VERY MUCH LIKE 'the DOING' of a VERY 'ego-driven' individual human being.

You claim to have no beliefs.

Yes, so what?

Why not wait and see what the next sentence is before asking another question.

WHY do 'you' NOT here ASK, 'Why not wait and see what the next post, or why not wait and see what the next thread, is before asking another question.

I ASKED 'this' QUESTION here BECAUSE 'this' IS WHEN I felt like doing so.

I COULD WAIT, FOREVER MORE, which is what A LOT of 'you', posters, here would LOVE. BUT I like to GAIN CLARITY, at the first instance, INSTEAD of WAITING.

You claim to have the fastest method, but instead of reading things in context, you jump to questions.

BECAUSE OPEN QUESTIONING, and Honestly ANSWERING, IS the FASTEST METHOD AT ARRIVING AT the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things', OBVIOUSLY.

Which is JUST ANOTHER Fact and Truth, which could NOT be REFUTED.

On one occasion, long ago, you said you had one. I disagree that you have only one.

'you' CAN DISAGREE FOREVER MORE, but the 'thinking' going ON, WITHIN 'this head' ONLY 'I' KNOW, FOR SURE.

Actually like most sentient beings, you can be mistaken also.

Yes, very true FROM the VERY LIMITED perspective of 'you', sentient beings and creatures.

BUT, do NOT FORGET that 'you', sentient being and creature, are STILL YET TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION OF 'Who and what 'I' AM, EXACTLY.

Or you can claim complete and flawless introspection.

ONCE 'you' LEARN and KNOW what the ACTUAL, proper AND Correct, ANSWER IS, to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' THEN, and ONLY THEN, 'you' WILL UNDERSTAND WHAT and HOW complete and flawless introspection IS OBTAINED, and WAS GAINED.

But I don't believe that either.

There ARE A LOT OF 'things' that 'you' DO and DO NOT BELIEVE. Thus, WHY 'this' IS TAKING SO, SO LONG, FOR 'you'.

Now, if 'you' REALLY WANT TO KEEP DISAGREEING that I have ONLY One BELIEF, ONLY, then PLEASE FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE to list ANY of ALL 'the BELIEFS', which 'you' think or BELIEVE that I HAVE.

You have the believe that you know all of what is going on in your head for sure.

BUT I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE 'this'.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER SEEK OUT and GAIN and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY, then 'you' WILL START TO SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY here.

There's two beliefs.

BUT WHY have 'you' JUMPED TO 'this CONCLUSION', especially SO QUICKLY, and WITHOUT EVER SEEKING OUT ANY CLARIFICATION, FIRST?

You believe that the process you use is the fastest most effective one, that's three. I could go on.

BUT, AGAIN, I DO NOT BELIEVE 'this', and NEITHER DO I DISBELIEVE 'this'.

WHY did 'you' even BEGIN TO PRESUME that I BELIEVE 'this'?

Now, is 'this' the ONLY ACTUAL example, if 'it' is, of ANY of these 'false assumptions', which 'you' CLAIM I HAVE?

One is enough. My goals are humble.

So, are 'you' here SAYING and CLAIMING that A False ASSUMPTION of mine is that I have ONE BELIEF, ONLY?

If yes, then are 'you' OPEN TO the Fact that ACTUALLY it could be 'your very OWN False ASSUMPTION/S' here, which could be what IS leading 'you' ASTRAY here?

What are 'you' on ABOUT here "iwannaplato"?

What are you on about, in general, Age?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one is just ASKED to CLARIFY what they are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT or REFERRING TO, INSTEAD of JUST DOING SO, 'they' RUN AWAY, or RETREAT.

And here's another belief, in fact it's two beliefs: one general, one specific.

BUT, 'they' ARE NOT BELIEFS.

EITHER, 'you' did NOT ANSWER my CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you' here, or 'you' DID NOT. (The ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS here FOR ALL TO LOOK AT and SEE).

And, 'you' RUNNING AWAY, or RETREATING, by NOT ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you', is NOT A BELIEF, NEITHER. (AGAIN, what 'you' ACTUALLY DID here is HERE, FOR ALL TO LOOK AT and SEE).

What I am ON ABOUT, in general, here, is LEARNING HOW to COMMUNICATE BETTER, with 'you', human beings, while I AWAIT for 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED in MAKING 'the world' A MUCH BETTER place for their children, and for their children, and for their children, forever more.

Who the fuck do you think you are to test me?

BUT 'this' has NEVER been ABOUT what I 'think', 'this' IS ABOUT 'what' I KNOW, FOR SURE, or what I KNOW IRREFUTABLY.

WHO I ACTUALLY AM WILL SURPRISE even the MOST 'hardened' ones of 'you'.

AND, IF, and WHEN, 'you' EVER COME-TO FINDING OUT and KNOWING FULLY, ALSO, then 'you' WILL FULLY UNDERSTAND WHO 'I' WAS 'testing' 'you', "iwannaplato".

I see the word 'fuck' as an intensifier.

Okay. But, OBVIOUSLY, that word means MANY 'things', TO MANY DIFFERENT peoples. But THANK you FOR the CLARIFICATION here. Doing 'this' HELP TREMENDOUSLY IN the BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF "one another".

I think you have mistaken extremely megalomaniac beliefs about yourself.

YET, I have CLEARLY STATED, TO 'you', that I ONLY have, and HOLD, ONLY One BELIEF, ALONE.

What can be SEEN, ABSOLUTELY, here IS the POWER OF BELIEF, and the POWER OF 'confirmation bias', which FOLLOWS BELIEF.

I could be wrong.

Now 'this' IS PERFECT, and, as can be CLEARLY SEEN, FOLLOWED ON from, and because OF, the word 'think' above here.

Who or what do you think you are?

The word 'you', TO 'me', MEANS or REFERS TO A human being, or MANY 'human beings'.

So, when 'you' SAY, 'Who or what do 'you' think ...', then 'i' would, and will, GIVE and PROVIDE an ANSWER FROM the 'human being' who goes by the name and label "age" here.

Or, in other words, what I AM DOING here, in general, is DOING what I THINK it TAKES, which WILL CREATE A MUCH BETTER 'world' FOR 'children', in general.

Another belief.

BUT WHEN WILL 'you' UNDERSTAND that 'your OWN perspective' of the word 'belief' DIFFERS somewhat FROM 'mine', and "others"?

If, for example, when 'you' are 'making breakfast' is 'this' 'your BELIEF'?

By the way, "iwannaplato" have 'you' NOTICED how OFTEN 'you' ALLUDE TO 'things'?

Have you notice how often you don't even rise to the level of alluding, though you allude also, see the quote above.

I DO, A LOT of, what I DO here to SEE 'who' IS ACTUALLY CURIOS, and who IS NOT.

YES 'we' HAVE NOTICED. 'you' PREFER to just PRESENT 'your OWN views' and HOPE that "others" WILL PRESENT 'their OPPOSING or AGREEING VIEWS', accordingly.

There are other options beyond the binary opposing or agreeing. There can be parallel, complementary, and other options.

I did MEAN TO imply parallel and complimentary views as well. But, CLEARLY I DID NOT.

THANK you for HIGHLIGHTING and POINTING 'this' OUT here.

Whereas, I PREFER to do the DIRECT approach and just ASK FOR CLARITY or ELABORATION. I WILL, sometimes, ALSO JUST DIRECTLY HIGHLIGHT and POINT OUT when some 'thing' IS False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

Each time revealing another belief.

BUT 'you' HAVE BEEN and ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISCONSTRUING what I AM ACTUALLY SAYING, and MEANING, when I SAY and WRITE I ONLY HAVE ONE BELIEF.

Just out of curiosity, when 'you' KNOW some 'thing', FOR SURE, is that ANOTHER 'belief' of 'yours'?

AND, I ACKNOWLEDGED 'this' BEFORE, AS WELL.

So, you EXPLAINING AGAIN, makes some wonder, WHY?

Misplaced comma. makes some wonder why?

THANK you.

I NEVER, REALLY, DID 'school'. So, I am only 'now' just IN THE PROCESS OF LEARNING HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH 'you', human beings, BETTER, and PROPERLY.

Makes some wonder, why? is asking why they wonder not why I am explaining again.

THANK you, AGAIN, for 'this VERY CLEAR and PRECISE Correction'.

If, as 'you' SAY, I NEED a 'host', it would be for this kind of HELP, and TUTORING, 'you' ARE SHOWING and REVEALING here.

Here 'you' go AGAIN, MAKING JUDGMENTS, and CLAIMS, ABOUT 'me', in regards to ONLY what 'you' THINK or BELIEVE I AM DOING, based on NOTHING MORE than 'your' VERY OWN BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS.

And here you are making a judgment of what I am doing what you think and believe....another belief.

BUT, EITHER 'you' ARE DOING 'this' or 'you' ARE NOT.

I DO NOT BELIEVE that 'you' ARE. Which, would have been MUCH CLEARER, IF I HAD WRITTEN, for example, 'Here 'you' go AGAIN, appearing, to MAKE JUDGMENTS, and CLAIMS, ABOUT 'me', ...', correct?

Now, 'you' here WANT TO CLAIM that I MAKE 'judgments of other people', which SHOW, and thus REVEAL, TO 'you', 'my' ALLEGED, beliefs AND assumptions. So, I WILL now QUESTION 'you' ABOUT whether 'you' WILL PROVIDE ACTUAL examples of WHEN 'you' THINK or BELIEVE I have DONE 'this'?

I have done this in other posts. Because the same questions come back when answered, it begins to seem like you like the role of the questioner more than the getting of information. I suppose it could also mean you don't remember ego-dystonic information.

AS CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE MORE, NO ACTUAL ANSWER TO the ACTUAL QUESTION IS PROVIDED.

AND AGAIN, if 'you' WILL NOT, then WHY NOT?

Will 'you' PLEASE REFRAIN FROM just ALLUDING TO 'things', when 'you' CLAIM 'things', ESPECIALLY when ABOUT 'me', and INSTEAD JUST PROVIDE the ACTUAL examples?

The phrase 'in the time this was written' alludes to all sorts of things. It makes implicit claims, thought it's not clear what they are. AGain, you often don't manage to arise to the level of allusion though you do allude and with regularlity.

So, WHERE, EXACTLY, is the ALLEGED 'assumption' and/or 'belief' here?

I think 'you' HAVE MISCONSTRUED the 'alluding' word above here WITH some 'thing' ELSE.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'you' end up just MAKING ACCUSATIONS, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ACTUAL PROOF.

which you also do.

WHEN?

If 'you' PROVIDE 'the examples', THEN I WILL PROVIDE 'the PROOF'.

I'd prefer a more balanced dialogue.

ONCE MORE, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to SAY and CLAIM ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF, what 'you' SAY and CLAIM are just YOUR WORDS, ALONE.

As you posts are yours alone. Have you noticed how alone you are? I don't know if anyone is as alone as you are.

'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AT ALL HOW ALONE 'I' ACTUALLY Truly AM here.

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER THOUGHT 'this' AT ALL.

WHY would 'you' PRESUME such A 'thing' as 'this' here?

This was absurd

WHAT was, SUPPOSEDLY, ABSURD?

ONCE AGAIN, WILL 'you' PLEASE REFRAIN FROM just ALLUDING TO 'things', ESPECIALLY WHEN 'you' ARE ACCUSING 'me' OF some 'thing'?

LOOK AT just HOW RIDICULOUS 'this' ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

I ASKED 'you', 'WHY would 'you' PRESUME such A 'thing' as 'this here?' AND,

'you' come BACK WITH, 'This was absurd'.

If ABSOLUTELY ANY one has ABSOLUTELY ANY IDEA as to what this 'this' IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then PLEASE let 'me' KNOW, AS WELL.

'you' spend quite a bit of 'time' EXPRESSING A LOT OF WORDS, but NOT ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT, or NOT ACTUALLY SAYING A LOT, as some would say.

What you mean here is that you don't understand the point. You add to that your belief that the problem is my communication.

1. I am NOT even SURE that 'you' even KNOW what 'your point' IS.

2. There is NO 'problem' here, TO 'me'. So, TO 'me', there IS NO so-called 'problem in your communication'. 'you' just DO what 'you' DO.

3. That a LOT OF the time 'you' do NOT just EXPRESS the ACTUAL 'point' that 'you' APPEAR TO BE WANTING TO MAKE is NOT A BELIEF ABOUT 'your communication'. It IS just what 'you' DO, FROM 'my perspective'.

As AGAIN SHOWN and PROVED just here.

You are confused about what proof means. But you may have satisfied your own criteria.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL ABOUT 'me' here, BASED ON NOTHING MORE than just SOME PRESUMPTION or BELIEF 'you' HAVE and/or ARE HOLDING ONTO.

Now, NOT that 'you' WILL PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO, BUT, 'WHY are 'you' here CLAIMING that 'I' AM CONFUSED ABOUT what 'proof' MEANS'?

What does 'proof' MEAN, TO 'you', "iwannaplato"?

Hopefully now 'you' WILL CLARIFY, especially considering I ASKED, NICELY, for 'you' TO.

I accept that you intended this communication to be nicely presented.

I would say it is more neutral than that.

Okay. 'you' ARE FREE TO SAY what SEEMS, or APPEARS LIKE, TO 'you'.

don't tell me what I am free to do. It implies that if I do something else, I am not free to do that.

BUT, as I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED 'you', 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

So, WHY 'you' would now SAY and CLAIM that what I SAID now implies that if 'you' do some 'thing' ELSE, then 'you' are NOT free to do that?

I WILL SAY 'this' AGAIN, 'you' ARE FREE TO SAY what SEEMS, or APPEARS LIKE, TO 'you', BECAUSE 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

Nice, to me, is not the mere absence of insults or judgments.

Okay. AND, 'nice' TO "others", CAN BE DIFFERENT, correct?

You haven't earned another question.[/quote]

BUT I DO NOT NEED TO 'earn' ANY 'thing' FROM 'you', and ESPECIALLY NOT MY INQUISITIVENESS NATURE.

Are you a disembodied entity that inhabits Ken?

That would ALL DEPEND ON WHAT 'you' ARE ACTUALLY ASKING here.

OBVIOUSLY, 'you' have NOT YET EVOLVED ENOUGH to KNOW what 'you' are ACTUALLY ASKING here.

For example,

What does the 'you' word here even MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, TO 'you', "iwannaplato"?

What even IS a so-called 'disembodied entity', TO 'you', "iwannaplato".

What even IS a "Ken", TO 'you', "iwannaplato"?

And, HOW could a "Ken", whatever 'that' IS, EXACTLY, be 'inabited', EXACTLY, TO 'you', "iwannaplato"?

Do you think you are God or some kind of divine messenger who communicated with the Bible writers?

NO.

Do 'you'?

What do you think you are Age?

The word 'you', ONCE AGAIN, TO 'me' REFERS TO A human being, or MANY human beings.

You have alluded to what you are in a hundreds of small ways.

REALLY?

And what are JUST SOME of those ways, of those ALLEGED 'hundreds of small ways', "iwannaplato"?

Waht you think you are affects all of your communication.

AND, what 'I' KNOW 'I' AM could ALSO be SAID to affect ALL of MY communication, AS WELL.

BUT, SO WHAT?

[Iwannaplato]

BUT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, what I HAVE SEEN and OBSERVED is that WHEN I POINT OUT and SHOW their Truly ILLOGICAL, NONSENSICAL, ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and/or CLAIMS, and especially when I EXPLAIN WHY 'they' ARE, what 'they' ARE, then this is WHEN MOST CHOOSE TO REACT the way that 'they' DO and IGNORE 'me'.

Earlier you presented this, I believe in a response to seed, without 'From my perspective'. Here you have added it. I pointed out that this interpretation on your part likely shows bias. You dismissed this, but have now added 'from my perspective'.

[Iwannaplato]

Thus, ANOTHER REASON WHY I ONLY HAVE and USE One BELIEF ONLY.

Here are some of your beliefs:

Human beings do not need money to live.
Every adult, human being, is greedy.
Greedy adults are the major cause of pollution.
Pollution leads to the demise of the livable planet earth.
In current times without earth human beings can not continually exist.

Greed helps in causing wars.
Wars cost uncountable horror and terror in some human beings.
Numerous humans are killed in wars.
Human beings murdered in wars have relatives, who mostly want to take revenge, causing more wars, death, or destruction.
Wars cost billions upon billions of dollars. Peace costs nothing.

All human beings are born, relatively, with no thought at all.
All thought comes from a previous experience.
All human behavior comes from a thought.
All human behavior is learned.

Living in peace and harmony is an extremely simple and easy thing to do.
Discovering and learning how to do it can be very easy or very hard.
If, and when, human beings are brought up in a peaceful and harmonious world, then they will just accept that as being the norm/reality.
Most human beings accept that 'the world', the time and era, that they live in is the norm/reality.
The Mind is always open and able to learn any thing. Thoughts, however, can get in the way of the Mind.

Every adult abuses children
All children have been abused.
Dishonesty leads to wrong doing.
Honestly leads to doing what is right.
Dishonesty, child abuse, and greed are wrong and are the three main causes of all wrong doing by all adult human beings.
ALL adult human beings behave wrongly.

There are no world problems.
Human beings are the only ones who create problems.
There is a solution, and an answer, to all problems.
The answers to all meaningful questions in life are very simple, quick, and easy to find.

And, CONVERSELY, if one does NOT have ANY BELIEFS, then 'they' are NOT SO INFLUENCED TO 'SEE' PARTICULAR 'things'.

However this is not relevant to a discussion of either one of us.

And you have told me that you have no, well, one belief. You present yourself as being transcendent.

Now 'this' is A GREAT 'thing', which I HAD NOT thought OF BEFORE.

THANK 'you' for, LITERALLY, SHINING MORE LIGHT ON, and THROUGH, what IS HAPPENING and OCCURRING here. Even if 'you' have NOT YET FULLY RECOGNIZED what 'you' HAVE ACTUAL DONE here, FOR 'us'.

Unfortunately I think the truth of my statement may be used to harm yourself and others, given your reaction. If only in minor ways in relation to others. Unless somehow you have a leadership position in relation to other humans in your non-digital life.

And is seeds right that you used to claim you helped people write the Bible and have you earlier made claims to be the deity?

WHY are 'you' USING the past tense 'used to' words here?

Also, 'you' ARE the word 'you' WITH 'I' here. Which leads all to quickly to VERY Wrong AND False CONCLUSIONS.

A LOT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, and UNDERSTOOD, FIRST, BEFORE what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, BECOMES Truly COMPREHENDED, and UNDERSTOOD.

But, some 'things' do TAKE TIME, as some would say.

an allusive non-response. If you made these claims earlier, then you considered the time right then. They are also, then, accessible online. The cat is out of the bag.

So, again, there could be other reasons than the only one you presented for people reacting as they did.

There MAY WELL BE. BUT, we will NEVER KNOW, FOR SURE

If you think, as you say here, after my pointing out other possibilities, that there may well be, then it would have been better not to have presented it as if there was only one option, especially given that that one option you presented was the most flattering for you and the most negative in relation to other people.

Especially if your goal or one of them is to reduce conflict at the time this is being written.

[Iwannaplato]

SO, 'you' do NOT ANSWER 'my' QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you', but 'you' TELL 'me', demanding, 'I' TELL 'you' WHO and/or WHAT "age" IS, EXACTLY.

'This' seems VERY CONTRADICTORY.

WHY do 'you' NOT just A CLARIFYING QUESTION, INSTEAD.

'you' REALLY do NOT LIKE ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, do 'you' "iwannaplato"?

If this IS TRUE, then could this be, for example, THE RESULT of what HAPPENS TO one AFTER 'they' have been LAUGHED AT, RIDICULED, HUMILIATED, and/or JUDGED one TOO MANY TIMES, FOR just ASKING QUESTIONS, PREVIOUSLY?

Here we have a situation where someone is asking me for information which they have themselves. The person doing this, you, has a pattern of continuously placing the burden of explanation, justification, explication on others. This patterns happens in a context where this person, you, often uses LOL and judgments in response to what people respond or write. This person seems not to realize what this leads to in the interpersonal dynamic, even when this has been pointed out.

It is in this context, my response came in the imperative.

The person I am interacting with likes to focus on the individual trees, but is missing the forest of his or her pattern of interaction and the effect this has on the dynamic.

I answered the question, now more questions come.

BECAUSE OF the Truly USELESS, or INAPPROPRIATE, ANSWER/S.

From your perspective.

My so-called 'approach' can only ever be the FASTEST WAY WHEN EVERY one in THE DISCUSSION IS Truly OPEN, Honest, AND CURIOS.

But you are not those things. Or perhaps you will explain if you posted here as Ken, even claimed to be God or have messages from God, communicated with the people who wrote the bible and so on. Explaining what truths there are in that, instead of being merely allusive and evasive.

Now, if 'you' do NOT like to, or will NOT, just ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed, and ASKED TO 'you', then 'this' is CERTAINLY NOT the so-called 'fastest way' AT ALL.

You could be a role model instead of the perpetual judge of the people of this time.

If 'you' recall correctly, I ASKED 'you' if calling 'you' an 'it' harmed, hurt, or offended 'you', "iwannaplato".

'you' replied that given WHO 'this' was coming from, then no, (at this time of communication).

Yes, because you haven't earned much respect from me in the ways when such a rude act would matter to me.

Now, BECAUSE 'you' USED the words 'given who it is coming from' can be inferred as 'you' KNOW, EXACTLY, 'who' 'it is coming from', I JUST QUESTIONED 'you' to SEE IF 'you' ACTUALLY DID KNOW. OBVIOUSLY, 'your' following responses SHOW and REVEAL 'you' DID NOT.

It is coming from the person who has behaved in the ways you have here interpersonally. That does not give me any complete knowledge of you. It gives me the kind of knowledge of you that leads me to expect consdescension, judgment and laughing at people for what you consider their failings. That you would call other humans 'it' while new to me was not surprising. I already know that you treat people poorly IN GENERAL.

If it was someone who had not exhibited these behaviors, who was more candid about who he thinks he is, who had a different way of positioning themselves in an interpersonal dynamic, then if such a person called me it, it would have affected me differently.

Now that 'you' have SHOWN and PROVEN that ACTUALLY 'you' HAVE NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to 'WHO' 'these words' are ACTUALLY COMING FROM, and have ASKED NO QUESTIONS AT ALL SEEKING CLARITY, 'we' can MOVE ALONG, now.

I have many clues about what kind of person you are in these interactions. Which I have explained to you before. But you now express that which is false. And it is also ironic since you so far will only be allusive and imply via behavior and vague writing. Even when asked. Yet you judge others for not being open and honest.

Ah okay. 'This NOT wanting to be referred to as 'it' is A PREFERENCE', which 'this one' HAS and is HOLDING ONTO, for some YET RECOGNIZED and/or KNOWN REASON.

If you are attached for some reason to calling people or me it, I guess you'll hang on to it. If on the other hand you are the compassionate entity you have presented yourself as, you'll respect me on that issue. Elsewhere you gave reasons for calling people it to make them realize they should be treating other kinds of entities with more respect and compassion. In the very post you explain this you noted that I wouldn't call other living entities it.

But you continue with this dominance game here, rather than simply showing some baseline respect, all the while implying that you have transcended all this human conflict stuff, that you are open and honest, and all the other things about yourself implied by allusive responses and statements and the way you interact with others.

If you need more information to respect that, well, you will continue to need more information about that.

That 'you' have NOT YET ANSWERED, and thus PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT if 'you' feel in some way somewhat 'harmed', 'hurt', or 'offended' being calling an 'it' WILL REMAIN UNRESOLVED. But, at least 'now' 'we' KNOW that 'you' just prefer NOT be to be referred to as 'it'. WHY, EXACTLY, will REMAIN 'a mystery'.

It seems you think I must perform certain actions before,in this minor way, you treat me with a kind of baseline respect. OK. Another clue about you.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

1. 'it' can be just ANOTHER word for 'person'.

Not at the time this is being written.

Do 'you' PERCEIVE "yourself" to be THE SPEAKER, or THE WRITER, FOR absolutely EVERY one, at the time when this is being written?

You seem to think you are that.[/quote]

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' WILL NOT JUST ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION being ASKED, FOR CLARITY.

I'll leave you to contemplate whether you could act with more respect than you did here. Yes, I see that you draw all sorts of conclusions when people don't do what you think they should and cannot see how the way you interact does not meet the standards you expect others to meet. It's typical guru behavior.

Was it?

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN TO PRESUME such A 'thing'?

The same way you did about me.
You keep missing the mirroring.

saying that it can be, period.

Well IF 'it' COULD BE FOR 'one', then WHY COULD 'it' NOT BE FOR ALL, here?

yes, I understand you think your conclusion was logical.
So, did I of mine.

It was also a conjecture that could be wrong.

REALLY?

If yes, then WILL 'you' SHOW and EXPLAIN HOW and WHY?

If no, then, AGAIN, WHY NOT?

Because you are not open and honest about yourself, but you expect others to continuously satisfy your curiosity about them.
You do not meet the standards you expect others to meet.

You let us know when you can be open and honest about the whole Ken issue and who or what you think you are. This will help me see your understanding of open and honest.

After looking at some of ken's posts, and if that is you, it would seem like you identify with THE ONE MIND. As if you are clear - uncluttered like we are - expression of this ONE MIND.

and there, if it is you, you think it would be a good thing if people....

Open up completely

but this would be a mistake for people to do in relation to someone with so many judgments of humans, who laughs when they do not meet his standards and cannot seem to grasp the implications of how you behave in a dynamic.

I don't think you realize, just as many gurus don't realist, that you do not understand what you are doing. I am not saying you are a guru, just that the pattern has similarities. So, I am using it in a metaphorical sense.

You don't force yourself on people, but if they don't do what you want you judge them. That judgment, especially if you get better at your approach, as it seems like you have since your ken days if that was you, may be enough to harm some people who cannot set good boundaries with entites who think they are enlightened.

[Iwannaplato]

y

So I found ken's posts. Are there any particular interactions you had with him there that are especially telling, or ones that you witnessed?

Ken seems a bit more human than Age. At one point, when called out by Belinda for being arrogant, he responds:

Thank you for your honesty.

I was not aware I come across like that.

I certainly do NOT have that attitude, as any one offline who knows me would not say that.

But I guess I do not seek be challenged so much in the offline world.

I know this would be a very obvious answer to you and so probably comes across as a very silly question, but I do not have the advantage from the other side like you have, what is it exactly that I am doing that makes me look like an arrogant twit?

I could assume what part of it is but I prefer to hear and find out the truth first, and please do not hold back at all. I can not see my attitude without you being a mirror for me.

There is his offline life mentioned. He seems surprised. He doesn't immediately go into how she is making assumptions or showing the limitations of people at the time of the writing. He does, later, return to a much more (familiar) defensive position. But it feels like one was interacting with a person and not possibly a bot of some kind.

[Trajk Logik]

However your original accusation was a strawman as I was not making any claim that to call out a fallacy is automatically fallacious, indeed right here I am correctly calling you out for a strawman fallacy.

This weird nonsense of yours is done.

It wasn't a straw-man because what you said AND given your history AND your lack of any examples, it is quit possible that you could be actually rejecting valid claims of a fallacy being committed. I already pointed this out to you but you choose to cherry-pick and not take everything I said in one post in it's entirety.

So you Hastily Gerneralized from your very limited experiences to make assumptions about what mistakes I might make if you assume a certain quantity of talentlessness on my part ... and then you just ran with that hasty generalization?

Just go back to reading Age's posts since you seem to enjoy doing that.

[FlashDangerpants]

It wasn't a straw-man because what you said AND given your history AND your lack of any examples, it is quit possible that you could be actually rejecting valid claims of a fallacy being committed. I already pointed this out to you but you choose to cherry-pick and not take everything I said in one post in it's entirety.

So you Hastily Gerneralized from your very limited experiences to make assumptions about what mistakes I might make if you assume a certain quantity of talentlessness on my part ... and then you just ran with that hasty generalization?

Just go back to reading Age's posts since you seem to enjoy doing that.

I must congratulate you for how gracefully you switched from a strawman to a hasty generalisation to an ad hominem in so few posts.

[Age]

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...



The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

Here is ANOTHER example of HOW MISINTERPRETING, BEFORE CLARIFYING, LEADS 'you', people, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY.

There is NO "age's/ken's body".

Also, UNTIL 'you' START TO SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP ASSUMING WHATEVER 'you' LIKE here.

OBVIOUSLY, what 'you' ARE PRESUMING/ASSUMING here is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. BUT, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP PRESUMING, ASSUMING, and/or BELIEVING that 'those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect 'things' ARE NOT.

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)
_______

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT 'its' BEST.

Saying, 'Now that 'we' understand 'your' dilemma', SHOWS and REVEALS HOW 'their' BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS would NOT ALLOW 'them' to FIND and SEE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

It was mostly for 'this VERY REASON' WHY the 'human being' stage was such A VERY LONG and DRAWN OUT process.

Also, ONCE AGAIN, THANK 'you' for RELAYING and REMINDING 'us' here of what 'I' have ALREADY SAID and MENTIONED, previously. Doing so HELPS, TREMENDOUSLY.

So, you did not post here as Ken?

1. Here is ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias', AT WORK.

2. I have NEVER said ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that would even come CLOSE for ABSOLUTELY ANY one to PRESUME or CONCLUDE such a 'thing' as you are ASKING here.

3. What MADE you ASK this QUESTION here?

[Age]

Why did you name yourself after the male Barbie doll btw?

BUT I DID NOT.

WHY WOULD 'you', and WHY DID 'you', PRESUME SUCH A 'thing', "atla"?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, 'these people', BACK THEN, REALLY seemed UNABLE TO JUST STOP PRESUMING/ASSUMING 'things'. Even no matter how False and/or Wrong 'those PRESUMPTIONS/ASSUMPTIONS' were, EXACTLY, 'they' STILL appeared to LOVE SPREADING and SHARING False AND Wrong PRESUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS.

Maybe 'they' did 'this' in the HOPE that those Falsehoods would 'CATCH ON', as some would say.

I didn't actually presume it lol

So, 'you' ASK the QUESTION, 'Why did you do some particular 'thing'?' BUT, SUPPOSEDLY, 'you' NEVER PRESUMED that 'that one' did do that particular 'thing'.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, is ANOTHER example of WHEN 'these people' are CHALLENGED and QUESTIONED OVER their MOTIVES and/or INTENTIONS 'they' will 'TRY TO' LIE and/or 'TRY TO' RUN AWAY and HIDE.

So, if 'you', "atla", SUPPOSEDLY, did NOT PRESUME 'it', then 'what', EXACTLY, made 'you' ASK the PARTICULAR, and VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION, that 'you' DID ASK here?

OF COURSE NO ACTUAL Truthful ANSWER TO 'this QUESTION' WILL COME FORTH, well NOT FROM 'this one' anyway.