Name that fallacy...

[Age]

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.

Have 'you' GOT ANY ACTUAL PROOF OF 'this CLAIM' OF 'yours' here, which 'you' would be BRAVE ENOUGH to PUT FORWARD, so that 'we' can HAVE A LOOK AT 'it', and THEN HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION?

Or, WILL 'you' JUST IGNORE this QUESTION posed, and ASKED FOR CLARITY, AS WELL?

I have pointed out instances where you jump to more questions rather than actually dealing with questions asked of you.

BUT, ON THE RAREST OF OCCASIONS WHERE I DO NOT ANSWER 'LEADING, UNDEFINED QUESTIONS', UNLIKE 'you', I DEAL WITH the QUESTIONS ASKED OF 'me', BY JUST ANSWERING 'them'.

Which I CONTINUALLY POINT OUT, TO '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.

If 'you' would be KIND ENOUGH, and/or BRAVE ENOUGH, to LINK 'us' TO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, other than the ONE that HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH, WHERE I HAVE, SUPPOSEDLY, LACKED CANDOR and DISMISSED, as if raising the question had NO merit, then 'this' would HELP 'you' IN backing up AND supporting 'your CLAIM' here, REGARDING 'me'.

You interpreted, falsely, my response as saying I should not be questioned.

DID I?

If yes, then IS 'this view and perspective' OF 'yours' IRREFUTABLY and thus ABSOLUTELY True, AND Right?

That interpretation was based on a false and convenient belief you had.

ONCE AGAIN, ARE 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE here?

COULD 'you' BE Wrong IN ANY WAY here?

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.

YES, 'you' DO KEEP TELLING 'me', AND "others", WHAT I SUPPOSEDLY AM DOING. BUT let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'you' NEVER ACTUAL PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL examples, FOR 'us', TO LOOK AT, SEE, NOR TO DISCUSS OVER.

Which, REALLY IS, VERY, VERY CONVENIENT, FOR 'you', right?

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.

OKAY. JUST SO I AM CLEAR, 'you', "iwannaplato", WILL NOT PUT UP WITH 'this toxicity', right?

I will continue to simply and clearly point out your toxic patterns.

IS this somewhat LIKE JUDGING "another", negatively?

Which 'you', APPARENTLY, do NOT LIKE 'me' DOING?

The days of indulging your process are done.

OKAY.

It now LOOKS LIKE, BACK, in the days when this WAS being written, the days of indulging in MY 'process' WERE DONE.

I realize you are likely not aware of your double standard, but that was what I was focused on,

It WAS, and STILL IS, VERY CLEAR that 'you' CLEARLY WERE VERY, VERY FOCUSED ON my PERCEIVED, BY 'you', so-called and alleged 'double standard' here.

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.

BUT I NEVER 'thought' 'this', let alone 'interpreted' 'this'.

WHY did 'you' PRESUME I 'interpreted' some 'thing', which I NEVER DID?

'you' appear to HAVE, ONCE AGAIN, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

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.

AS I HAVE CONTINUALLY EXPRESSED, and INFORMED 'you' OF, I WAIT FOR 'those' who ARE Truly CURIOS, INTERESTED, and who ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, BEFORE I REVEAL 'things' here.

ONCE AGAIN, I AM IN NO HURRY, and SO I JUST WAIT, PATIENTLY.

Nor how special and positive you judge yourself, a a double pattern that infect every single interaction.

Okay. BUT WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER DISCOVER, or LEARN, and UNDERSTAND WHO 'I' AM, EXACTLY, then 'you' WILL ALSO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, EXACTLY HOW and WHY there is NO ACTUAL 'double pattern NOR double standard' here AT ALL.

'you' WILL ALSO LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY 'you' HAVE BEEN HAVING and SEEING the Wrong AND False PERCEPTIONS and 'things' here.

But, THEN AGAIN, 'you' may will NOT BE AROUND, as some might say, ANYMORE, BEFORE the ACTUAL Truth here IS REVEALED TO 'you'.

AGAIN, 'we' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO FIND OUT, and SEE.

[Iwannaplato]

Have 'you' GOT ANY ACTUAL PROOF OF 'this CLAIM' OF 'yours' here, which 'you' would be BRAVE ENOUGH to PUT FORWARD, so that 'we' can HAVE A LOOK AT 'it', and THEN HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION?

Again: you are confused about proof and evidence. And this asking for proof functions conveniently to maintain your habits and to try to get others to run around and do work you do not do yourself.

I have presented a lot of evidence.

Your communication with others is not going well, at a fundamental level. Most people consider you nutjob and stop communicating with you. I have put time and energy into responding to you. You can continue with your habits. Or you could take time and mull.

[Age]

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'.

Same old dominance game.

AND, 'this' what 'you' ALONE SEE here IS JUST BECAUSE I am JUST EXPRESSING the SAME OLD IRREFUTABLE Truth, which, OBVIOUSLY, DOMINATES OVER ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' ELSE.

It could NOT be ANY OTHER WAY, Naturally, and OBVIOUSLY.

Now, if 'you' do NOT LIKE the Truth DOMINATING OVER what 'you' SAY, ALLEGE, or CLAIM, then I suggest 'you' JUST EXPRESS ONLY what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True ONLY. Like WHEN I DO.

I haven't missed your criterion that you hold other people to.

OKAY. BUT ABSOLUTELY EVERY one ELSE HAS. BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ACCUSE 'me' OF some 'thing', while CLAIMING some 'thing' but NEVER LET ON TO NOR ABOUT what the some 'thing' IS, EXACTLY.

Now, LET 'us' SEE IF 'you' WILL PROVIDE what the so-called 'criterion' IS, EXACTLY, which 'you' BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that 'I' HOLD 'you', people, TO, EXACTLY.

Will 'you' do 'this', or, will 'you', ONCE AGAIN, IGNORE 'this'?

So, that assumption you are showing here is incorrect.

WHAT, ALLEGED, ASSUMPTION?

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' ALLUDE TO some' 'thing' IN 'your' CLAIM and ACCUSATION, but which ABSOLUTELY NO one KNOWS what 'it' IS that 'you' ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY .

Second, notice how Age implies the dominance of his criterion.

BUT I JUST STATED THE DOMINANCE, EXPLICITLY.

I ALSO EXPLAINED HOW and WHY THE DOMINANCE EXISTS, and PERSISTS.

That is; Truth WILL ALWAYS OVERRIDE what IS NOT True.

Then notice that he does not use the Seems-like construction for his beliefs and assertions. Double standard.

BUT I DO NOT HAVE ANY BELIEFS here. That 'you' SEE BELIEFS IS A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION WITHIN 'that head'.

Also, OBVIOUSLY what I ASSERT is NOT A 'seems-like'. Unless, OF COURSE, I STIPULATE that 'the assertion' IS a 'thought', 'seems like', and/or an 'appearance'.

REALLY, have 'you' NOT YET TAKEN A FULL LOOK INTO nor AT the WAY I WRITE, and INTO and AT the WORDS, which I SPECIFICALLY CHOOSE and USE here?

But 'you', human beings, OBVIOUSLY HAVE LIMITATIONS, which have EXISTED since 'you', human beings,

And dominance again, beliefs presented not in the seems format.

OF COURSE NOT.

I am NOT going to present a 'seems like', 'apparently', NOR 'think' format for what I CAN back up AND support WITH PROOF.

Also, and just out of curiosity, did 'you' ACTUALLY READ, and COMPREHEND, the REST of 'that sentence'?

He implicitly distinguishes himself from humans.

OF COURSE. AND, as I have SAID NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY, TO 'you', "iwannaplato", 'this' IS BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW the PROPER AND Correct ANSWER TO the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

Which, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' do NOT YET KNOW.

Also, I have NEVER implicitly distinguished thy 'Self' as A "himself". And to think, IMAGINE, or BELIEVE that I HAVE just SHOWS how MUCH of MY WRITINGS that 'you' DO NOT READ, and COMPREHEND.

He does not need to qualify his statements.

YES OBVIOUSLY. AND, 'this' IS BECAUSE NO one HAS YET SO FAR been CURIOUS ENOUGH NOR INTERESTED ENOUGH TO ASK ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

I ONLY 'qualify' and/or 'clarify' TO 'those' who SEEK 'quality' and/or 'clarity'. As I CONTINUALLY INFORM 'you'.

This is the context for any interaction with Age.

1) Do as I say, not as I do: double standard:
2) Age does not have the failings of the people he is talking to. This is assumed from the get go.

Dominance-focused, toxic behavior.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that 'this context' IS FOR ANY interaction WITH 'me'?

[Iwannaplato]

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'.

Same old dominance game.

AND, 'this' what 'you' ALONE SEE here IS JUST BECAUSE I am JUST EXPRESSING the SAME OLD IRREFUTABLE Truth, which, OBVIOUSLY, DOMINATES OVER ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' ELSE.

You don't see it, but I am hardly alone in noticing your negative patterns.

[Age]

'This one' thinks or BELIEVES that 'it' IS SO GURU or God like that 'it' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' can TELL "another" what "the other" BELIEVES or DOES NOT BELIEVE

Moving onto your turf. You do that with us.

BUT, UNLIKE 'you' I CAN back up AND support what I SAY and CLAIM here.

But it's not ok when it comes back towards you. Double standard.

WHY do 'you' PRESUME that there is ANY 'not ok' ON or FROM 'my part?

WHY do 'you' CONTINUE TO PRESUME and/or ASSUME 'things', which do NOT even exist? And, if 'you' EVERY SOUGHT OUT and GAINED and OBTAINED CLARIFICATION FIRST, then 'you' WOULD NOT KEEP DOING the EXACT SAME Wrong 'things' NOR KEEP MAKING the EXACT SAME MISTAKES, which 'you' OBVIOUSLY KEEP DOING and MAKING here.

I NEVER even 'thought' that what 'you' DO WAS 'not okay', let alone SAID or MENTIONED that what 'you' DO was 'not okay'.

WHY DO 'you' PRESUME that what I was POINTING OUT that 'you' DO is 'not okay'? Do 'you' KNOW, WITHIN, that DOING 'that' IS 'not okay'?

In your previous post, you said I did not provide 'proof'.

Previous to what post?

1) you're confused about the possibility of providing proof of such things online.

'This' seems like ANOTHER Truly WILD, ABSURD, and RATHER OUTLANDISH CLAIM, and ACCUSATION, OF 'yours'

What, EXACTLY, has LED 'you' to think or BELIEVE that I AM CONFUSED ABOUT the possibility of providing proof of some, ALLUDED TO, 'things' online?

Proofs are for things like symbolic logic and math in such a context.
2) I provided evidence, which you have not responded to directly.

If the ACTUAL Truth BE KNOWN I do NOT even KNOW what 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here.

And, 'this', ONCE MORE, IS BECAUSE 'you' have NOT DIVULGED what, EXACTLY, 'you' ARE talking ABOUT and/or REFERRING TO, but rather are, ONCE AGAIN, just ALLUDING TO some YET TO BE KNOWN, BY 'me', 'thing'.

Now, WHERE and WHAT IS the ALLEGED 'evidence', which 'you' have SUPPOSEDLY PROVIDED ALREADY?

And this evasion has gone on repeatedly.

Okay. If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE SO, then 'it' MUST have been going ON, REPEATEDLY.

If 'you' REPEATEDLY IGNORE CLARIFYING AGAIN here, 'we' WAIT, TO SEE.

Gaslighting, double standards, toxic dynamics performed regularly by Age.

AGAIN, is 'this' LIKE THE JUDGING, which 'you' CONDEMN 'me' FOR DOING?

[Age]

If 'this' is what 'you' SAW and BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, then, by ALL MEANS, CONTINUE ON WITH 'this WAY' of LOOKING, and SEEING 'things', here.

Dominance tactic: giving permission as if that is your role and you are the judge.

And NOT RECOGNIZING what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING here IS 'your role' here.

[Age]

Wouldn't surprise if Age turned out to be wheelchair-bound or bed-bound for life. Comes across as someone who can't even go outside and see the real world.

'This' IS ANOTHER view, AND perspective.

[Age]

Wouldn't surprise if Age turned out to be wheelchair-bound or bed-bound for life. Comes across as someone who can't even go outside and see the real world.

I have no idea. I mean, I certainly wouldn't rule that out.

It's been said a number of times but a number of people:

WHAT, EXACTLY, has been, SUPPOSEDLY, SAID, A NUMBER OF TIMES, by A NUMBER OF PEOPLE?

That I am 'wheelchair-bound', that I am 'bed-bound, for life', and/or that I 'can NOT even go outside, and see the 'REAL world'?

Or, is 'it' some 'thing' ELSE?

it's rather amazing how many guru/radical exception/best philosopher in the world people are drawn to philosophy forums.

WHY do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'this' IS, EXACTLY?

[Age]

It's a shame that you can't take what I wrote to heart, but I am not surprised that you can't do this.

What does 'take to heart', even ACTUALLY MEAN or REFER TO, EXACTLY, TO 'you' "iwannaplato"?

The mind often wants a wall of word, a proof, as you put it, when in fact, when challenged at a fundamental level, intuition is necessary.

BUT 'the Mind' NEVER wants ANY of 'these things'.

BUT, THEN AGAIN, 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what the Mind IS, EXACTLY?

It is so easy for the thinky, verbal mind to dismiss and demand and avoid fear.

ONCE MORE, 'you' SAY and CLAIM some False 'things' here BECAUSE 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

[Age]

WHEN do 'you' ENVISION, IMAGINE, or BELIEVE that 'I' have NOT been 'sincere' here?

The river of questions continues.

AND 'they' WILL. For the REASONS I ALREADY EXPRESSED and EXPLAINED here.

I say that my sense is that you are sincere and you ask me when I think you weren't.

Now, let 'us' LOOK AT, and SEE, what 'you' ACTUALLY WROTE here "iwannaplato".

THEN, through a Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION, 'we' WOULD, EVENTUALLY, ARRIVE AT what the ACTUAL Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

'you', "iwannaplato", ACTUALLY WROTE:
I believe, though I may be wrong, that you are sincere here.

Now, BECAUSE I DID NOT SEEK OUT and GAIN and OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION, FIRST, MY CLARIFYING QUESTION MAY HAVE BEEN NOT NEEDED.

So, I WILL FIRST SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION. But, IF 'we' GET CLARIFICATION/CLARITY 'we' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

WHEN 'you' USED the 'here' word in 'your CLAIM', what were 'you' REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

This process goes on and on with its implied assumptions.

And what was the IMPLIED ASSUMPTION here, FROM 'me'?

If 'you' EVER ANSWER/EXPLAIN/CLARIFY, then I WILL EXPLAIN WHY 'it' EXISTED, that is; IF 'it' ACTUALLY DID.

Is it AT ALL POSSIBLE that ANY or ALL of the so-called and named 'evasions', 'double standards', 'judgments', and/or 'confusion on my part', (which OBVIOUSLY what 'you', human beings, DO and HAVE), which 'you' SEE IN 'my writings' COULD BE False OR Wrong?

Is it possible that always reacting with questions might be also a defense mechanism?

I DOUBT IT BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING TO 'defend'.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' AGAIN REFUSES to JUST ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, AND ASKED TO 'it'.

Also, did 'you' NOTICE that 'you' REACTED with A QUESTION, which might well have been A 'defense mechanism' USED BY 'you' in 'your' ATTEMPT to DEFLECT FROM the Fact that 'you' did NOT WANT TO ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION ASKED TO 'you' here?

It is like 'you' do NOT WANT TO ADMIT that ACTUALLY 'you' could be Wrong here, and thus that 'your' VIEWS here could ALSO BE False, AND Wrong.

Is it possible that I have noticed something fundamental about how you approach and interact with people that is problematic?

But 'you' just NOTICED what 'you' "yourself" ACTUALLY WERE DOING, in the EXACT SAME response.

AND, 'you' STILL seem ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO the Fact that MY APPROACH WITH 'you', posters, here is NOT so-called 'problematic' AT ALL.

In Fact the way 'you', and "others", ARE, and HAVE BEEN, interacting WITH 'me' here IS PERFECT. As 'you' ALL ARE HELPING TREMENDOUSLY IN PROMOTING and BRINGING TO FRUITION the GOAL that I HAVE SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH and REACH here.

If yes, then given how fundamental the criticism is that I have aimed at you, it might take time and mulling and feeling into for you to understand it.

Okay, if 'you' SAY SO.

If no, well that fits with the double standards.

IS 'this' 'double standards' like CRITICIZING "another" FOR JUDGING "others" WHILE JUDGING "another" AT THE EXACT SAME TIME?

Or, when CRITICIZING "another" of 'double standards' does 'this' work ONLY 'one way'?

[Age]

Because you cannot see the toxicity involved in communicating with someone who has very negative judgments of the humans of this time,

What are 'you' ON ABOUT AGAIN here "iwannaplato"?

1. I DO NOT HAVE 'negative' NOR 'positive' judgments OF 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written.

This is gaslighting.

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

You have expressed judgments of the people at the time this has been written again and again.

SO WHAT?

And, OF COURSE I HAVE EXPRESSED JUDGMENTS of 'you', people, in the days when this is being written. BUT, 'this' IS Truly JUSTIFIED. As WILL BECOME MUCH MORE CLEARER TO 'you', human beings, as 'time goes by', as some might say here.

AND, AS I JUST EXPRESSLY EXPRESSED, I DO NOT HAVE 'negative' NOR 'positive' judgments of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written.

[Iwannaplato]

BUT, UNLIKE 'you' I CAN back up AND support what I SAY and CLAIM here.

Ah, now for you it is 'back up and support'. With others it is proof, show Age the proof.

And then I have given evidence in this recent exchange and before. Gaslighting on your part notwithstanding.

[Iwannaplato]

I have no idea. I mean, I certainly wouldn't rule that out.

It's been said a number of times but a number of people:

WHAT, EXACTLY, has been, SUPPOSEDLY, SAID, A NUMBER OF TIMES, by A NUMBER OF PEOPLE? [/quote]In the English language there is a punctuation mark called a colon (:). When you have that in the middle of the sentence what comes after is often an example of what has gone before in the same sentence. Above for reasons known only to yourself, you decided to take away what came after the colon.

This allowed you to ask a question. Which is part of a pattern where you produce a stream of questions rather than in a more complex way interact with your fellow humans.

It's been said a number of times but a number of people: it's rather amazing how many guru/radical exception/best philosopher in the world people are drawn to philosophy forums.

A dash of evidence in this post, as part of a pattern of me giving a lot of evidence...and you responding with habit.

[Age]

Have 'you' GOT ANY ACTUAL PROOF OF 'this CLAIM' OF 'yours' here, which 'you' would be BRAVE ENOUGH to PUT FORWARD, so that 'we' can HAVE A LOOK AT 'it', and THEN HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION?

Again: you are confused about proof and evidence.

So, AGAIN, 'you' EXPRESS JUDGMENTS ABOUT 'me', do NOT back up AND support 'your ACCUSATIONS and CLAIMS' ABOUT 'me', and do NOT DIVULGE EXACTLY what 'you' are ALLUDING TO, ONLY.

Now, I COULD ASK 'you', TO INFORM 'us' of what 'you' KNOW ABOUT 'proof' AND 'evidence', and, HOW 'this' KNOWING supposedly relates TO 'me' being ALLEGEDLY CONFUSED ABOUT 'proof' AND 'evidence', BUT IF I DID it WOULD ONLY BE A WASTE right "iwannaplato"?

Also, what 'you' ARE SAYING and CLAIMING, IN OTHER WORDS IS, that ACTUALLY 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NONE AT ALL TO PROVIDE.

And this asking for proof functions conveniently to maintain your habits and to try to get others to run around and do work you do not do yourself.

LOOK, I WILL SAY 'this' ONCE MORE, FOR 'you' this time "iwannaplato". I suggest NOT SAYING and CLAIMING 'things', which 'you' can NOT back up and support with ACTUAL PROOF, BEFORE 'you' HAVE OBTAINED ACTUAL PROOF and/or BEFORE 'you' ARE PREPARED TO SHARE the ACTUAL PROOF, and ESPECIALLY WITHIN A PUBLIC environment like A philosophy forum MORE SO.

I have presented a lot of evidence.

BUT ABSOLUTELY NONE, which 'you' ARE PREPARED TO REPEAT nor LINK 'us' TO.

ALSO, let 'us' NOT FORGET that just SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' HAVE DONE SO in NO WAY MEANS that 'you' ACTUALLY HAVE.

See, I COULD ASK 'you' FOR PROOF here, BUT 'you' WOULD COME BACK, AGAIN, WITH SOME IDIOTIC and COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED RESPONSE LIKE; 'Again: you are confused about proof and evidence'.

Your communication with others is not going well, at a fundamental level.

BUT 'it' IS GOING ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY, ESPECIALLY FOR WHAT I HAVE SET OUT AS THE GOAL here.

Most people consider you nutjob and stop communicating with you.

Do 'you' MEAN 'most people' here, or EVERYWHERE?

Also, some people here consider 'me' an ABSOLUTE and TOTAL so-called "nutjob" AND/OR STOP COMMUNICATING WITH 'me'. Which FITS IN PERFECTLY WITH THE GOAL, and what I WANTED TO SHOW and REVEAL here.

I have put time and energy into responding to you.

Okay. Has putting that so-called 'time and energy', into responding to 'me', in some way been DRAINING TO 'you'?

You can continue with your habits. Or you could take time and mull.

Is 'this' this DOMINANCE and/or PERMISSION GIVING here, like what 'you' were JUDGING 'me' ON, and ACCUSING and CLAIMING 'me' OF DOING?

[Iwannaplato]

me: The river of questions continues.

AND 'they' WILL. For the REASONS I ALREADY EXPRESSED and EXPLAINED here.

I have no doubt you are content to continue a river of evasions and questions.[/quote]

My hope is that you actually spend time using your intuition and mulling before reacting with habit.