Name that fallacy...

[Age]

If I remember correctly, on her old account Age openly talked as God sometimes. She never had any doubt the she's (channeling) God.

Now she is merely trying to be all "mysterious" about it, hiding the God-channeling behind 10 layers of obfuscation. Now you have to be fully open to what she has to say and fully committed to listening to her and answering clarifying questions for months, before you are ready to be told the ACTUAL TRUTH.

And on the rare occasions that "it" finally reveals the "ACTUAL TRUTH" of something it has been withholding from us, it turns out to be utterly mundane, and absolutely nothing of any revelatory nature.

I mean, you'd think that an other-worldly entity that alleges to have helped inspire the writing of the Bible would have a little more insight into the nature of reality than that of a 14-year-old schoolgirl who just recently put some thought into the big questions.

And in light of the disappointing information that "it" has revealed to us in the past, the channeled entity nevertheless has the gall to wonder why we don't feel like taking the time to ask it innumerable "clarifying questions" in order to elicit more of the same disappointing answers.
_______

She's not even thinking imo, I think she's just hallucinating, hearing voices. That's all there is to it.

AND, 'you' ARE FREE TO 'think' ABSOLUTELY WHATEVER 'you' like "atla". But, OBVIOUSLY, what 'you' 'think' is true is NOT necessarily even partly true AT ALL.

[seeds]

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

Well, as it pertains to you rightfully chastising Age for calling you an "it", if you want to see where ken (aka, Age) and I got into a debate over his practice of calling a living thing an "it", then start with this two-part post...

viewtopic.php?p=319901#p319901

Then check out this post (in the same thread) where the "it" debate continues...

viewtopic.php?p=320146#p320146

And finally, if you want to see where ken uses the telling (Age-esque) catchphrases: "...the days when this is written..." and "...clarifying questions..." along with the added bonus of him actually making an effort to offer an in-depth explanation of his theory regarding the ontology of the universe (which basically is nothing more than a strange version of "pantheism"), then check out this post...

viewtopic.php?p=320549#p320549

Ken seems a bit more human than Age.

Yes, and that's because ken's (now Age's) pathological obsession of needing to CAPITALIZE most of HIS words hadn't fully KICKED-IN at that time.

Ironically, one of his (or "its") stated goals is to learn how to better communicate with "us humans."

Yet, when pretty much everyone tries to point out to him that his excessive use of CAPITAL LETTERS causes most of "us humans" to ignore his unreadable posts, he simply ignores the complaints, which renders his declared hope of becoming a better communicator meaningless.

Indeed, he cannot seem to get it into his thick skull that his excessive use of CAPITAL LETTERS has an effect on a reader (or at least on me, anyway) that is comparable to that of walking down what should be a smooth path, but instead is covered with rocks and boulders that one must climb over to reach a destination - a destination that, upon closer examination, is a waste of time to pursue.

Now I'm not meaning to be mean-spirited toward a confused and naïve person who is simply expressing his personal views in a very annoying manner, for I too have been known to annoy others with my views, and the over-use of my illustrations.

Nevertheless, I cannot shake the feeling that we are all breaking the cardinal rule of not feeding - if not a troll - then some "thing" that possesses the ability to suck the oxygen out of every thread and conversation it gets involved with as it mercilessly smothers the participants beneath an avalanche of unreadable posts.

Anyway, if you have any doubts about whether or not ken is Age, then check out those links I provided.
_______

[Age]

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

WHEN, and IF, 'you' ALSO COME-TO-KNOW the proper AND Correct ACTUAL ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' Then 'you' TOO WILL ALSO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY HOW 'I' AM OUTSIDE the category of human beings/s.

Until then 'you' if 'you' KEEP PRESUMING, or BELIEVING, otherwise 'you' WILL KEEP being PREVENTED, and/or STOPPED, FROM LEARNING, SEEING, and UNDERSTANDING what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

2) taking a dominance position in every discussion: one that is palpable and so far unwarrented, given how ineffective this communication is.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' ALSO COME-TO-KNOW the proper AND Correct ACTUAL ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' Then 'you' TOO WILL ALSO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY WHY a so-called and PRESUMED 'dominance position in, supposedly, EVERY discussion ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Also, 'you' seem to KEEP FORGETTING that my TARGET AUDIENCE is NOT necessarily 'you', posters, here, AT ALL.

3) assuming I needed to be treated in this way

AGAIN, 'you' seem to be coming across as some sort of VICTIM, who is being harmed, hurt, or offended, BY just a FEW WORDS in front of 'you'.

Also, in WHAT WAY do 'you' think or feel 'you' are being TREATED here "iwannaplato".

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.

'This' IS VERY True.

JUST LIKE 'you' ALSO do NOT NEED to be referred as NOR by ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ELSE, NEITHER.

ALSO, WHY bring 'this' up now, considering the fact that there is NOTHING in the quoted parts that is referring to 'you' as an 'it'?

But you avoid correcting yourself, for some, reason,

BUT THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE CORRECTED.

IF 'I' CHOOSE TO CALL and LABEL 'you' AS AN 'it', "iwannaplato", then 'this' IS WHAT 'I' WILL DO.

Now, if 'me' DOING 'this' HARMS, HURTS, OFFENDS 'you', or AFFECTS 'you' in some NEGATIVE WAY AT ALL, then 'I' suggest that it is time that 'you' GROW UP and MATURE, "iwannaplato".

How INSECURE would an adult human being HAVE TO BE to ALLOW such a TINY and VERY INSIGNIFICANT 'thing' to EFFECT 'them' in the WAY that 'this one' is SHOWING and REVEALING.

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,

'On the rare occasions ...'.

1. Compared to the amount of times rest of the OTHER posters here admit to their errors what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here is comical.

2. I have ADMITTED TO EVERY ERROR, which I have NOTICED, and/or SEEN when POINTED OUT TO me.

you admit within a context where you claim that higher ground.

IF 'you' EVER BECOME Truly OPEN and Truly INQUISITIVE, THEN 'you' WILL LEARN and SEE FROM WHERE and WHY the 'higher ground' EXISTS, EXACTLY.

Which, COINCIDENTALLY, NEVER PUTS ANY OF 'you', human beings/things, AT ANY, IMAGINED, LOWER LEVEL.

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 KNOW EXACTLY WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, who AND what "age" IS, and who AND what 'you' human beings ARE.

AND, let 'us' NOT FORGET it has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN that 'you' DO NOT YET KNOW who NOR what ANY of 'these things' ARE, EXACTLY.

In Fact 'you' can NOT even EXPLAIN TO 'us' who NOR what 'you' ARE, "iwannaplato".

As 'you' WILL CLEARLY SHOW and PROVE True, FOR 'us', here.

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.

'We' WILL just HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

'you' OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET FULLY SEEING, and COMPREHENDING, the ACTUAL WORDS that I have USED so far.

[Age]

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.

How UNINTERESTED and INCURIOUS 'you' ARE.

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.

Okay.

'you' seem to NOT understand some 'things' AS WELL.

(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.

What positions one ALREADY HAS and HOLDS, ALSO, affects THE WAY that 'they' THEN LOOK AT, and SEE, 'things'.

For example, some people SEE RUDENESS when ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY NONE IS ACTUALLY EXISTING, or, some people SEE "another" as NOT understanding what 'conditional language' IS, when NOT ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING what 'conditional language' ACTUALLY IS "themselves".

Nice allusive post taken as a whole.

In relation TO 'what', EXACTLY?

Is there any truth to your having used the name ken in past positing here?

OF COURSE.

Just like "skepdick", and/or "others", have gone by MANY OTHER names here AS WELL.

There has NEVER BEEN ANY INDICATION that I HAVE NOT.

WHY did 'you' feel 'you' NEEDED TO ASK 'this CLARIFYING QUESTION'?

if so, what?

I AM NOT going to REPEAT EVERY WORD I HAVE WRITTEN PREVIOUSLY.

Is there any truth that the entity or person here calling himself Age thinks he spoke/communicated with the writers of the Bible?

NO.

BUT BECAUSE there are a FEW WAYS TO LOOK AT and UNDERSTAND 'your QUESTION' here, there IS A HUGE CHANCE that 'you' WILL MISINTERPRET or TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT MY ANSWER here.

[Age]

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'.

What do 'you' MEAN that I DISMISSED 'this'?

Considering the Fact that I Correct 'this', the Inaccurate and Incorrect WORDING that I HAD PREVIOUSLY USED, INDICATES and SHOWS that I NOT JUST ADMITTED this Wrong DOING on my part, but ALSO HIGHLIGHTING WHERE I DID Wrong BY THE Correction I HAVE CLEARLY MADE.

But, THEN AGAIN, people DO ONLY SEE what 'they' WANT TO SEE.

[Age]

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.

But 'you' ARE Wrong ON EVERY OCCASION here "iwannaplato"?

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' ARE NOT WRONG here?

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.

But 'it' SURELY EXPLAINS WHY I DO NOT HAVE and MAINTAIN BELIEFS.

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. [/quote]

AND I think 'you' have a VERY EXTREMELY SHALLOW, SMALL FIELD OF VIEW, and/or VERY "one sided" PERSPECTIVE when LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things'.

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.

'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE LED and GET SO FAR ASTRAY BECAUSE OF 'your' VERY LIMITED and DISTORTED ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

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.

OBVIOUSLY I COULD HAVE SAID, 'Yes' OR 'No', AND ON BOTH OCCASIONS 'you' COULD HAVE, and ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE, MISINTERPRETED 'things' here BECAUSE:

1. OF 'your' OWN MEANINGS/DEFINITIONS for words that 'you' USE.

2. OF 'your' OWN PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

3. OF 'your' OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS.

BUT 'you' appear to NOT WANT TO CONSIDER these IRREFUTABLE Facts.

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,

JUST MAYBE SOME 'thing' that 'you' COULD HAVE DONE WAS TO JUST ASK FOR, and GAIN and OBTAIN, ACTUAL CLARITY FIRST, BEFORE 'you' STARTED PRESUMING that I was ONLY presenting ONE option, ONLY.

Do 'you' think that 'that' WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER?

Or, do 'you' ALWAYS RELY ON the "other" TO ALWAYS SPEAK and/or WRITE IN A WAY, which PRESENTS ALL 'things' IN AN ABSOLUTE PRECISE WAY, TO 'you'.

Also, have 'you' FORGOTTEN that A 'thing' PRESENTED in ONE WAY can be UNDERSTOOD, or MISUNDERSTOOD, by SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS?

For example I could present some 'thing' here, AND absolutely EVERY one could UNDERSTAND 'it' PERFECTLY, but 'you' might NOT UNDERSTAND 'it' in ANY way, shape, nor form, AT ALL.

especially given that that one option you presented was the most flattering for you and the most negative in relation to other people.

IF human beings do NOT want to HANG AROUND and DISCUSS 'things', so that the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth COULD, and ACTUALLY WOULD, COME-TO-LIGHT, then so be it.

Now, if 'this' IS 'negative' TO 'you', then so be it. It WAS, as I have been HIGHLIGHTING and SHOWING, a COMMON OCCURRENCE, BACK in the days when this WAS being written.

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

Now, WHY would 'you' PRESUME/ASSUME such A 'thing'?

'you' appear to REALLY NOT COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY, WRITE, and USE here.

[Iwannaplato]

Anyway, if you have any doubts about whether or not ken is Age, then check out those links I provided.

Thanks for the links. Actually after just a little reading I could tell it was the same person, earlier in a depersonalization process. At the very least, depersonalizing the character Ken--->Age.

I compared the process of communicating with Age with guilt and self-doubt. These are processes with obsessive thoughts that undermine moving forward. Guilt is not regret - where one faces what one has done and is less likely to repeat it. Guilt is just this kind of self-hate that slows the self down'. Like a clog. Self-doubt is not self-care or healthy caution. It's another self-undermining.

Communicating with Age is like this, because - ironically given his criticism when someone else is being allusive - he is allusive and creates this never-ending spiralling down in his questions and demands for justification.

He's imagined the end of this process where we agree on the meaning of all terms and conflicts vanish via some pretty image in his mind. And the negative results of this process have absolutely no effect on his sense that he's found the key to it all.

When you and others have brought up the Ken issue, he has dismissed it. There was no - Yes, I was ken, but.....He just made it seem like you were doing something without any understanding or basis. That's a lie.

Along with his persistant claim that he has only one belief. That's also a lie. Of course he could define 'belief' in a way that works for him. But then since he instantly judges others as having beliefs, he applies whatever idiosyncratic definition of belief differently on himself and others.

It is typical toxic spiritual leader behavior, everything aimed at gettting dominance over the other and judging the shit out of them if they disallow this.

Not that I think he is aware of this stuff.

[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.

But 'you' ARE Wrong ON EVERY OCCASION here "iwannaplato"?

I appreciate the question mark here. On some level you are calling for help. No, I am not wrong. Without hesitation when others assert something you call it a belief and judge/laugh at them, lump them with the people of this time. When you assert things as the case, it is not a belief. You do not have one. So, just as many toxic spiritual leaders, you judge yourself and others differently. You do not explain how you are free of beliefs when you make assertions - perhaps via some idiosyncratic definition of belief - and yet you KNOW they are. You simply deny that you have any and immediately judge others as having them. That is toxic.

[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'.

What do 'you' MEAN that I DISMISSED 'this'?

Considering the Fact that I Correct 'this', the Inaccurate and Incorrect WORDING that I HAD PREVIOUSLY USED, INDICATES and SHOWS that I NOT JUST ADMITTED this Wrong DOING on my part, but ALSO HIGHLIGHTING WHERE I DID Wrong BY THE Correction I HAVE CLEARLY MADE.

But, THEN AGAIN, people DO ONLY SEE what 'they' WANT TO SEE.

Nope. There is no sign you made a connection. I brought it up and I was wrong to, according to you and your reaction. But later, with no reference to what happened earlier, you wrote a more cautious version. Ego protective games.

[Iwannaplato]

NO.

BUT BECAUSE there are a FEW WAYS TO LOOK AT and UNDERSTAND 'your QUESTION' here, there IS A HUGE CHANCE that 'you' WILL MISINTERPRET or TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT MY ANSWER here.

An allusive, evasive answer. If I am allusive, it is a problem and gets judged by Age. If Age is allusive it is fine. If other people are less than completely open and honest, this is a problem according to Age and they are judged. If Age is less than fully open and candid, this is justified, and generally justified allusively, if at all.

Toxic would be spiritual leader patterns.

People brought up Age and you wrote in response as if there was nothing to what they said. This was a lie by omission, evasion and implication.

[Iwannaplato]

WHEN, and IF, 'you' ALSO COME-TO-KNOW the proper AND Correct ACTUAL ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?' Then 'you' TOO WILL ALSO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY HOW 'I' AM OUTSIDE the category of human beings/s.

I believe, though I may be wrong, that you are sincere here. Unfortunately for this belief, I have seen enough evasions, double standards, judgments and confusion on your part to find you human. Which is not an insult, that last, however much you may view humans as something not to be.

You initiate a pattern toxic to humans. I know how ego-dystonic this would be for you to notice. But I am not going to pretend otherwise just because they way you will deny this is so utterly predictable.

[Iwannaplato]

How UNINTERESTED and INCURIOUS 'you' ARE.

Because you cannot see the toxicity involved in communicating with someone who has very negative judgments of the humans of this time, who laughs at people when they don't meet his standards and who judges others through double standards, you only see your questions and the conversation at the level of exchange of information. Despite your implicit (and explicit) claims here of transcendence and also when you were Ken, you are quite clueless about what is happening in an interpersonal dynamic. You may have a couple of insights and you can focus on those now to protect your ego, but the fact is you try to set up a toxic dynamic with others - which is why the process has the precise level of success it has: noll.

I understand that it doesn't seem like it to you. But I went vastly more into your beliefs, ideas and needs for this process than you did in relation to me. I met judgments of me in most steps and no interest in showing the slightest cross cultural or interpersonal respect on your side.

The process is a direct parallel to other kinds of toxic interpersonal dynamics with toxic spiritual leaders and narcissists.

I am sure you think you mean well. But really, you have no respect for other people, unless they meet your demands. And this is the context within which your communication, the details of it, take place. And the reason you meet no success with your key to the solution of all problems?

It's because at root people feel the disrespect and hatred in the process.

Unfortunately there are people who will fall for this.

[Age]

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.

Okay.

The person doing this, you, has a pattern of continuously placing the burden of explanation, justification, explication on others.

Well, as I CONTINUALLY POINT OUT and SAY, if people come into a philosophy forum, and CLAIMS 'things', but do NOT EXPECT to be QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER their CLAIMS, by "others", then the ONLY ones that 'they' are FOOLING here ARE "themselves" ONLY.

AND, let 'us' NOT FORGET that it IS 'I' who CONTINUAL ASKS to have the BURDEN OF EXPLANATION, JUSTIFICATION, and EXPLICATION PLACED UP ON.

But, SADLY, 'these people, BACK THEN, just would NOT DO 'it'.

This patterns happens in a context where this person, you, often uses LOL

WHEN 'you' SAY 'often' here, have 'you' CONSIDERED WHEN the LAST TIME I USED 'LOL' WAS, EXACTLY?

Also, let 'us' NOT FORGET that when I USED 'LOL' 'you' STILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE AS TO WHAT 'LOL' even ACTUALLY MEANS and/or REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

Although, and OBVIOUSLY, 'you' may well BELIEVE otherwise.

and judgments in response to what people respond or write.

Is NOT EVERY one here USING 'judgments'?

This person seems not to realize what this leads to in the interpersonal dynamic, even when this has been pointed out.

WHO CARES ABOUT SOME so-called and ALLEGED 'interpersonal dynamic'?

And, TO SEE IF some so-called 'interpersonal dynamic' is such A REALLY TERRIBLE 'thing' anyway, 'Will 'you', "iwannaplato", EXPLAIN TO the readers here what the two words 'interpersonal dynamic' even MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

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

Okay. But COULD 'your' INTERPRETATION of 'things' here, which RESULTED IN 'this context', which 'you' talk ABOUT here, be the RESULT and/or CAUSE OF 'your OWN confirmation bias/es'?

Or, is 'this' NOT POSSIBLE?

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.

Have 'you' REALLY and SERIOUSLY FORGOTTEN that MY WORDS here are NOT necessarily FOR 'you'?

Have 'you' REALLY and SERIOUSLY FORGOTTEN that I have been USING 'you', posters, here FOR A VERY SPECIFIC READER, or AUDIENCE?

Have 'you' REALLY and SERIOUSLY FORGOTTEN that I have been USING 'the words' FROM 'you', posters, here TO SHOW HOW and WHY 'these human beings', BACK IN THE 'OLDEN TIMES and DAYS' TOOK SO, SO VERY LONG to LEARN HOW, EXACTLY, to be ABLE TO LOOK AT, SEE, and UNDERSTAND 'things FROM the One and ONLY ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth OF 'things'?

The so-called 'forest' here seems to have been COMPLETELY MISSED. Even though I have EXPLAINED 'it' MANY TIMES, ALREADY.

I WILL EXPLAIN 'it' AGAIN "iwannaplato", My interaction WITH 'you' IS NOT necessarily for 'you' TO UNDERSTAND ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' I SAY and WRITE here. So far I HAVE BEEN USING 'you', and "others", and 'your words', TO SHOW and REVEAL what NOT TO DO, in the future, that is; IF 'you', human beings, REALLY DO WANT TO LIVE IN Peace, and IN Harmony, together AS One.

'you' REALLY DO NEED TO GET OUT OF 'your PRESUMING' here "iwannaplato" that 'I' am here TO CHANGE FOR 'your' BENEFIT.

I answered the question, now more questions come.

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

From your perspective.

AND is NOT absolutely EVERY 'thing' 'you' SAY and CLAIM, 'From your perspective', ALSO?

Now, if 'you' would like 'me' to WRITE the words, 'From my perspective', IN and FOR absolutely EVERY sentence that I WRITE, in relation to DISCUSSIONS WITH 'you', then I WILL.

But, be forewarned, I MIGHT, UNINTENTIONALLY, FORGET TO, sometimes.

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.

From your perspective.

AND, 'we' AWAIT FOR 'you' to PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY, and ALL 'things', which WILL PROVE 'your CLAIM' here ACTUALLY True AND Right.

Until THEN 'your CLAIM' is NOT backed up NOR supported by ANY ACTUAL REAL 'thing'.

Also, do NOT FORGET that 'your PRESUMPTIONS or BELIEFS' are NOT necessarily based UP ON ACTUAL REAL '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.

YES, PERHAPS I WILL, AND PERHAPS I WILL NOT.

I CERTAINLY AM NOT WHEN there IS NO ACTUAL CURIOSITY and INTEREST being SHOWN by ANY one.

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.

FIND A QUESTION, which I have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT ANSWERED, and then I WILL PROVIDE 'you' WITH THE ANSWER.

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.

So, it DOES MATTER TO 'you' being CALLED AN 'it'.

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.

AND, what TO 'you' IS A 'person', EXACTLY?

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.

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER COME-TO-KNOW and UNDERSTAND thy 'Self', THEN 'you' WILL ALSO LEARN, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND the True INSIGNIFICANCE OF 'your words' here.

That you would call other humans 'it' while new to me was not surprising. I already know that you treat people poorly IN GENERAL.

AND, 'you', supposedly, KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

By just A FEW PRINTED WORDS ON A SCREEN IN FRONT OF 'you', ALONE?

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.

So, what 'you' ARE REALLY SAYING IS, the WAY 'you' SEE 'things' is BASED UPON 'your' OWN personal Assumptions, FROM Past Experiences. Or, what I like to CALL and REFER TO as 'APE thinking'.

And, considering how LONG AGO that 'that type of thinking' WAS OCCURRING, that is; BACK in the days when this was being written, then 'that type of thinking' WAS APE-LIKE, in relative terms to HOW APE's WERE compared in evolutionary terms to how human beings WERE, in the days when this IS being written.

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.

We WILL WAIT TO SEE if 'you' even CLARIFIED what A 'person' IS, EXACTLY, TO 'you', BEFORE I WILL MOVE ON TO THE OTHER 'things' here.

Which I have explained to you before.

REALLY?

Will 'you' PROVIDE A LINK TO ANY of these ALLEGED and SUPPOSED 'clues' as to WHAT KIND OF PERSON 'i' AM, TO 'you'?

By the way, "iwannaplato", are 'you' even ABSOLUTELY SURE that 'I' AM EVEN A 'person' TO BEGIN WITH?

But you now express that which is false.

AND 'you', ONCE AGAIN, NEVER EXPRESS NOR EXPLAIN what 'that' IS, EXACTLY, which TO 'you' IS, SUPPOSEDLY, false.

'you', ONCE MORE, ALLUDE TO SOME COMPLETELY UNKNOWN 'thing'.

And it is also ironic since you so far will only be allusive and imply via behavior and vague writing.

Well, as I CONTINUALLY SAY and POINT OUT, IF ABSOLUTELY ANY one WANTS TO LEARN and/or KNOW ANY MORE, then PLEASE, by ALL MEANS, ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards TO what 'it' IS that 'you' REALLY WANT TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and/or KNOW here

Even when asked.

REALLY?

WHERE ARE these ALLEGED QUESTIONS, which I have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT ANSWERED?

Yet you judge others for not being open and honest.

AND, 'you' JUDGE "others" FOR FAR LESS 'things'. But anyway, if 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'I' have NOT been OPEN nor Honest absolutely ANYWHERE here, then JUST POINT 'these occasions' OUT, FOR ALL OF 'us' TO HAVE A LOOK AT, and SEE, and THEN 'we' WILL HAVE SOME 'thing' TO OPENLY and Honest DISCUSS ABOUT. Until then 'you' ARE ON 'your' OWN here.

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.

Well that is what the 'attached' word IMPLIES, and/or even LITERALLY MEANS.

Also, 'you' appear to NOT YET HAVE A CLUE AS TO THE REASON, and ONCE AGAIN SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST AT ALL IN LEARNING and IN COMING-TO-KNOW and UNDERSTAND, NEITHER.

If on the other hand you are the compassionate entity you have presented yourself as, you'll respect me on that issue.

If 'you', as an ADULT HUMAN BEING, are TROUBLED or AFFECTED NEGATIVELY by such a Truly INSIGNIFICANT 'things' as 'this', then, literally, SO BE 'it'.

Oh, and by the way, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that some human beings, BACK in the days when this was being written, REALLY DID BELIEVE that 'they' were ABOVE, SEPARATE, or BEYOND "OTHER" 'things'. These people thought SO MUCH OF "themselves" that 'they', literally, did NOT WANT TO BE called NOR referred to AS 'things' NOR 'its', as though 'they' were somehow SUPERIOR TO or BETTER THAN the OTHER 'things' AND 'its'.

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.

Well 'this' IS A Truly ABSURD and EXTREMELY DISTORTED CONCLUSION. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING the ACTUAL WORDS that I have SAID and USED above here.

Will 'you' POINT 'us' TO WHERE, EXACTLY, IN MY WORDS that LED 'you' TO ARRIVE AT SUCH A CONCLUSION as 'you' PORTRAYED here?

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.

BUT 'I' AM GIVING 'you' so-called BASELINE RESPECT. 'you', "iwannaplato", and 'you', human beings, ARE NO BETTER NOR ANY MORE SIGNIFICANT/IMPORTANT that ALL OF the OTHER 'things' and 'its'.

In Fact 'I' give 'you' JUST AS MUCH RESPECT AS I GIVE ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' ELSE.

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.

ONCE AGAIN, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is just how FAR ASTRAY 'you' END UP and CONCLUDE, FROM WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT. Which, AGAIN, is BASED UPON 'your' PREEXISTING BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS.

Now, I do NOT AT ALL think that 'you' HAVE TO DO NOR PERFORM ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' in order FOR 'me' TO TREAT 'you' WITH ANY kind OF RESPECT, so-called 'baseline respect' or NOT. And, to VIEW, THINK, or BELIEVE otherwise SHOWS and PROVES just HOW FAR 'your' VIEWS ARE TWISTED and/or DISTORTED.

I GIVE ABSOLUTELY EVERY one OF 'you', things, the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF ABSOLUTE EQUAL RESPECT.

Even IF 'you', "iwannaplato", WANT TO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE otherwise.

OK. Another clue about you.

SEE how QUICKLY one DISTORTED view or perception LEADS TO FURTHER or MORE DISTORTED VIEWS and PERCEPTIONS.

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.

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.

AND ONCE AGAIN 'we' CAN CLEARLY SEEN REFUSAL TO ANSWER, and CONTINUAL ATTEMPTS TO IGNORE, and TWIST or CHANGE the PERSPECTIVE OF 'things'.

I WILL LEAVE 'you', "iwannaplato", TO CONSIDER WHETHER 'you' COULD BE LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' here FROM A Truly TOTALLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM WHAT I AM PROVIDING.

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.

JUST MAYBE IF 'you' REMOVE 'your' PREEXISTING PERCEPTION that 'the writer' here thinks or BELIEVES that 'it' IS a so-called 'typical guru', then ALL OF 'your' OTHER False AND Wrong DISTORTED VIEWS WILL BE FREE TO VANISH, AS WELL.

'We' WILL just HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

Was it?

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

The same way you did about me.

But this CLAIM is ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect ALSO, and AS WELL.

You keep missing the mirroring.

'you' KEEP MAKING 'the mirroring' where one DOES NOT EXIST.

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.

BUT 'yours' was OBVIOUSLY NOT. Whereas, MINE has NOT BEEN REFUTED.

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.

Have 'you' FORGOTTEN that 'you' HAVE TO SHOW, and PROVE, WHERE I have NOT been open and honest ABOUT "myself" FIRST, BEFORE 'your' CLAIM could be SERIOUSLY ACCEPTED and AGREED UPON?

Also, the CURIOSITY I SHOW here, THROUGH A SERIES OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, IS TO SHOW and REVEAL that ACTUALLY 'these people', BACK THEN, did NOT KNOW what 'they' would CONTINUALLY CLAIM TO KNOW.

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.

WHY ARE 'you' SO AFRAID TO JUST ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, TO 'me' "iwannaplato"?

Oh, and by the way, I CAN BE OPEN and Honest ABOUT the so-called 'whole "ken" issue', RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. FOR 'those' who HAVE ANY REAL INTEREST.

Also, there is NO ACTUAL so-called 'whole "ken" issue' ANYWAY. Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' WANT TO MAKE one UP.

And, ONCE AGAIN, there is NO who NOR what I 'think' I AM. As I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, unlike 'you', 'I' ALREADY KNOW WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY.

This will help me see your understanding of open and honest.

A MUCH QUICKER, SIMPLER, and EASIER WAY, which REALLY HELPS 'you' SEE 'my understanding of OPEN and Honest' IS DONE THROUGH and BY 'you' just ASKING Truly OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. It REALLY IS this SIMPLE.

After looking at some of ken's posts, and if that is you, it would seem like you identify with THE ONE MIND.

BUT there IS ONLY One Mind. All this talk ABOUT MANY minds or MY mind, are just MADE UP Falsehoods, to FOOL and TRICK 'you', human beings, AWAY FROM what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

As HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

As if you are clear - uncluttered like we are - expression of this ONE MIND.

HOW TO FIND the Truly UNCLUTTERED VERSION, or Truth, IS an EXTREMELY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY PROCESS, and which HAPPENS ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY, that is; ONCE one DISCOVERS, or LEARNS, and UNDERSTANDS HOW-TO.

and there, if it is you,

WHY do 'you' KEEP WONDERING if 'it' is 'me'?

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.

There ARE SO MANY 'things' here, which 'you' HAVE ALREADY, and/or ARE, MISSING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or MISINTERPRETING here.

And, UNTIL THOSE 'things' ARE CLEARED UP and UNDERSTOOD, PROPERLY and Correctly, BY 'you', then 'you' WILL CONTINUE IN 'your' DOWNHILL SPIRAL here.

I don't think you realize, just as many gurus don't realist, that you do not understand what you are doing.

Now, SINCE 'you' ARE BEGINNING now WITH A False AND Wrong PERCEPTION/PRESUMPTION, and CONCLUSION, the REST of 'your' VIEWS, PERCEPTIONS, and CONCLUSIONS, FROM now on, WILL MOST LIKELY ALSO END UP Truly False, AND Wrong.

I am not saying you are a guru, just that the pattern has similarities. So, I am using it in a metaphorical sense.

The 'patterns' being 'similar', and the REASONS WHY there EXISTS an APPEARANCE of A 'similar pattern', TO 'you', WILL COME-TO-LIGHT SOON ENOUGH.

You don't force yourself on people, but if they don't do what you want you judge them.

WILL 'you' PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY ANY examples, so that 'we' have AT LEAST SOME 'thing' TO LOOK AT, SEE, AND DISCUSS?

Or, would 'you' PREFER that 'we' do NOT SEE, and DO NOT DISCUSS, whatever 'it' IS here, which 'you' are ALLUDING TO?

Also, if an adult KEEPS ABUSING children and that adult does NOT stop doing what 'you' WANT 'them' to do, then do 'you' JUDGE 'them', or do 'you' JUST WALK AWAY and IGNORE 'them'?

Or, do 'you' do some 'thing' ELSE?

If the latter, then 'what' do 'you' DO, EXACTLY?

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.

If there was NO 'judging/judgment', then what REASONS would there BE, TO CHANGE?

For example, if 'you' did NOT KNOW what was Right, or Wrong, WITHIN 'you', and so did NOT even JUDGE 'your' OWN mis/behaviors, then what REASONS would 'you' have FOR CHOOSING the behavior or misbehavior that 'you' CHOOSE TO DO.

ALSO, JUDGING FROM A VERY SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVE, or POINT OF VIEW, IS ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE and ACCEPTABLE.

'you' are, OBVIOUSLY, just YET TO LEARN and KNOW WHERE and WHAT that PERSPECTIVE and POINT OF VIEW IS, EXACTLY.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, as I CONTINUALLY POINT OUT and SAY, if people come into a philosophy forum, and CLAIMS 'things', but do NOT EXPECT to be QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER their CLAIMS, by "others", then the ONLY ones that 'they' are FOOLING here ARE "themselves" ONLY.

Of course, it is not that you ask others, it is that you do not consider yourself beholden to the same degree of openness and honesty you expect from others. I have pointed out instances where you jump to more questions rather than actually dealing with questions asked of you. I have pointed out, possibly in posts you haven't read yet, how your answers, in regard for example to the Ken issue, lack candor and dismiss as if raising the questions had no merit.

You interpreted, falsely, my response as saying I should not be questioned. That interpretation was based on a false and convenient belief you had. That my objection had to be based on my not wanting to be asked for justification.

I explain the hypocrisy about beliefs in an earlier post of mine. You have double standards. And you are not candid, while judging others for not being completely open and honest. That is narcissist/toxic spiritual leader gaslighting behavior.

My guess is you are not aware you are doing this. And so despite you not being able, I would guess, to take this seriously, I want to be clear with you: I will not put up with this toxicity. I will continue to simply and clearly point out your toxic patterns. The days of indulging your process are done.

I realize you are likely not aware of your double standard, but that was what I was focused on, and because of your negative beliefs about me and humans of this time, you interpreted my statements as meaning I shouldn't have to justify what I say. While it is you who evade, allude and do not justify all your judgments of the people of this time and specific individuals here from the get go. Nor how special and positive you judge yourself, a a double pattern that infect every single interaction.

[Age]

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

ONCE AGAIN, 'you', "iwannaplato", have MISSED that when one INFORMS 'me' of what SEEMS-LIKE, or APPEARS, TO 'them', then that IS PERFECTLY FINE, ALL RIGHT, and OKAY WITH 'me'.

NO one could ACCURATELY DISPUTE what SEEMS-LIKE or APPEARS TO "another".

or showing the limitations of people at the time of the writing. [/quote]

But 'you', human beings, OBVIOUSLY HAVE LIMITATIONS, which have EXISTED since 'you', human beings, evolved and were created in Existence, and which WILL EXIST until 'one' evolves OUT OF the 'human being stage' and moves UP and INTO the NEXT STAGE, of Existence, Itself.

I just SHOW the limitations of 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, so "others" WILL LEARN what NOT TO DO, IN Life.

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.

Okay. IF 'this' what SEEMS, TO 'you', then ALL WELL and GOOD.