Let's look at and talk about "age", again.

[Atla]

Who knows, but he has clarified his goal here.
This was in response to my criticizing his communication. In other words, the goal of his communication is to elicit things from us that demonstrate his ideas about people. Such a goal justifies both lying and communicating terribly on the actual topics, posts, other posters, etc. What is elicited that confirms his ideas (confirms them to him at least) is what matters to him.

Which is utterly instrumental treatment of other people. 'using 'you' posters'

His real message is not for us. He is trying to demonstrate something here that will help him spread his real message elsewhere.

I know that, Age said this many times.

Thank you "atla" for confirming this.

See, here 'we' have a prime example of just how long it takes for these human beings here, when this was being written, to come to the actual Truth of things, when they just presuming or believing things, instead of just seeking out and obtaining and gaining actual clarity, first.

Imagine, if "iwannaplato", just asked 'me', ages ago, clarifying questions in regards to just clarifying what I was saying, and meaning, instead.

How different things would have been here. And, how much simpler, easier, and way, way quicker could have "iwannaplato" come to the 'exact same conclusion'. Which, this time, is, FINALLY, Right, and Correct.

That's why I kept harassing this universal-'I' from the future.

Now, 'we' are back to 'this one', once again, making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and then believing that their own made up assumptions and conclusions are, absolutely, true, right, and correct, also.

When will these two learn what they are doing is Wrong, here?

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Atla]

I've noticed that when I push on a point for a while, he starts saying things that make me think 'Ah, now I understand what Atla meant that time.'

If one stays on something for a while he starts revealing things (or just making stuff up rather than admitting anything).

You know those voices in the head that torture some people - call it self-hate, or a toxic conscience, or even the voices schizophrenics are sometimes plagued by - his communication is like that.

Well I think literally believing that you're God (the-universal-self) doesn't usually happen without at least a little schizophrenia..

Okay. But, this then makes one wonder why this would be related to absolutely anything that I have actually said and written here.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Age]

I realized to continually want to talk 'about me' in threads that were 'not about me' was to add to "iwannaplato's" off-topic responses. So, I decided to respond to this post of "iwannaplato's" here where it belongs.

I realized to post about what Age was doing in the Physicalism thread would be to add to Age's off-topic response to Flannel Jesus. So, I'll put my post here:

But, you, still, do not yet know what I am, actually, doing. you, instead, just keep making up assumptions about what I could be doing. Some of which you believe are true.

What does Age leave out of his analysis of his response to Flannel Jesus? Here was the response....

Once again, these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

And usually 'each' would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.

Again, this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.

Age defines this as 'agreeing with' Flannel Jesus. That phrase sums up what he is doing in that post for Age.

Notice Flannel's response to this summation.

Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

Flannel Jesus is responding to at the very least other things that Age was doing.

But, not one of those four statements and claims of "flannel jesus" was Right nor Correct. Therefore, any claim of yours here, now, that "flannel jesus" is responding to at the very least other things that I was doing is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

One would hope that on a second or fifth read Age might notice that his framing that act as 'I just agreed with you' is pointedly clueless.

And, you can claim whatever you like, but if that claim aligns with what is actually True and Right, or not, then that is a whole other thing.

What is it that what Age wrote doing?
What does is it saying about what Age is like or isn't like?
What does assert about Flannel Jesus and the people of our time?
What is Age's attitude towards us and the people of the time is?

For someone who professes to be a "teacher" of the "english" language, you do write very 'sloppy', sometimes.

What verbs would we use for enacting this attitude in the post the way he did?

you, really, cannot stop 'looking at' and 'making judgments' of and about the perceived person's, can you?

In case you are, still, unaware, this is a 'philosophy forum, where arguments, ideas, views, et cetera, only, are meant to be 'looked at', 'delved into', and 'discussed'. This site was not set up, at all, for what has ended up as common place in a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where 'looking at', 'judging', and ridiculing people happens far, far to often.

I would prefer you just stopped doing this and solely and only focus on 'the words' I use, only. However, I can not stop you from continually wanting to look a 'me, judge 'me', and continually try to ridicule and humiliated 'me'. However, when you do, this thread, and this topic, is where your judgmental views belong.

What contrast is being made between Age and the people of this time?

Did Age actually agree with FJ? Generally when you agree with someone you address them. Did Age do that? No.

FJ is quoted, but the post begins 'Once again, these human beings'. If he was addressing Flannel Jesus he would have said 'you human beings'. Not that that's very pretty either, given what follows. If I spoke to my wife and said 'These human beings' and described her behavior as I saw it, I wouldn't be addressing her.

Yes, part of what he is saying is in agreement with Flannel Jesus - not on the topic at hand. Not in relation to what FJ is focused on. Not on physicalism or emergence which FJ was writing about. Yes, Age's post fits with the fact that FJ had the opposite opinion to the OP writer. This did not need saying. Nor is it 'agreeing' or sensibly referred to as 'I agreed with you.'

Yet Age can frame his post this way: I agreed with you. So, clueless about all the things he was primarily doing, which is while odd, no longer surprising.

Dear reader: imagine you agreed with what FJ was saying: how would you convey this? By talking about FJ in the third person with the specific attitude Age had in that post?

Unlikely in the extreme.

I am doing one thing similar to what Age did. While I have quoted him, I am not addressing him. I am addressing others. I am doing that, in part to mock - and have done it before for this reason - but mainly because I do not think Age is capable of both noticing that he was doing a lot of things in that post and agreeing with Flannel Jesus, the act of doing that, was not one of them.

He seems not to understand what he is doing.

And if he had actually mulled for a moment Flannel Jesus' response, he might have realized some of the really rather obvious things he was doing. And perhaps, if there was some miracle involved, he could 1) take responsibility for them 2) respond to the challenge FJ made there about how part of what Age was going was hypocritical. 3) and then in miracle beyond miracles stop talking down to and negatively about everyone - or on those occasions when he puts in qualifiers regarding the people of this time - most people.

Not once have I seen Age openly consider that some of the main problems that keep coming up between him and posters here have to do with his way of communicating and his attitudes.

Once again, for the very 'hard of hearing', and/or for the very 'slow at learning', I am not here, in this forum, to necessarily communicate, better, with you posters here. If this happens and occurs, the so be it and all well and good. But, to keep having to remind you "iwannaplato" that my intended target audience is not necessarily you nor any other poster here, would get tiresome to some.

Hopefully, one day, this sinks in and is understood, by you.

I come here to have Truly 'philosophical discussions', which, to me, are discussing things in a Truly logically reasoned way', in order to uncover and find answers and/or new/er things

Unlike all of you posters here I only have one belief, and so I do not do 'debate'.

I also do not have any other beliefs, which I then try to fight for, and/or 'argue' over.

I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, in order to show and reveal what has already have proof for.

See, although 'unambiguous facts that cannot be refuted' have already been shown and revealed to me, learning how to express, show, and/or reveal them to a group of 'believers' and 'disbelievers' is a process that does not happen instantaneously.

As a side note: it'd be hilarious if people started 'agreeing with other posters' in the way Age supposedly did and only did.

Well, obviously, this claim of yours here could only be proved true if you, and/or others, started doing this?

Will you start doing this?

If no, then why not?

A: .....and that's why I think Veritas is incorrect about Hume's conclusion there.
B: these people often thought that other people were incorrect. Human beings....[pontification elided]
A: what are you doing?
B: I just agreed with you. We both think you think Veritas is incorrect.
A: Ah, OK, you weren't interested in the topic of my position on meta-ethics, then, but you found a way to use my post to tell us about human beings at this time.

LOL - that's one solid way to show a love of learning.

Did you find your own made up writing here 'hilarious'?

Just in case anyone is interested, I did not find it even slightly amusing, let alone funny, nor hilarious, at all.

By the way, from what you have just written here as some kind of example, you appear, once again, to have completely missed what 'the point' was that I was making, and showing.

But again, this is not to be unexpected by you at all, as this is a very common occurrence of yours here, with me.

Also, you, still, do not seem to have comprehended how from 'the way'others respond and reply one can learn how a great deal in regards to how to communicate much better with others, at a later date.

The 'love-of'learning' can last a whole lifetime, that is; if one wants to keep what everyone is born with, naturally.

[Iwannaplato]

But, not one of those four statements and claims of "flannel jesus" was Right nor Correct. Therefore, any claim of yours here, now, that "flannel jesus" is responding to at the very least other things that I was doing is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

LOL. Flannel Jesus isn't making claims about you, he's responding to the obvious implications of your writing. And he does several times tell you that you need help with your writing.

Again, this kind of misreading fits with myopic focus, hyper focus, perseveration and confusing about things like irony, the effects of context on what is written and other points I've made and others have made about your communication and understanding.

And, you can claim whatever you like, but if that claim aligns with what is actually True and Right, or not, then that is a whole other thing.

A very complicated way of not quite saying you disagree.

For someone who professes to be a "teacher" of the "english" language, you do write very 'sloppy', sometimes.

Yes, I type very fast and make errors sometimes. Nice evasion.

In case you are, still, unaware, this is a 'philosophy forum, where arguments, ideas, views, et cetera, only, are meant to be 'looked at', 'delved into', and 'discussed'. This site was not set up, at all, for what has ended up as common place in a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where 'looking at', 'judging', and ridiculing people happens far, far to often.

You do the things that you are pointing out in me that you consider wrong here. Or, your writing so poorly conveys your meaning that you are inadvertantly judging people and don't really mean it.

I would prefer you just stopped doing this and solely and only focus on 'the words' I use, only.

Follow that rule yourself, if you think that is a good rule. You seem not to prefer to do that yourself.

However, I can not stop you from continually wanting to look a 'me, judge 'me', and continually try to ridicule and humiliated 'me'. However, when you do, this thread, and this topic, is where your judgmental views belong.

But your posts where you condescend to most or all the people of this time, those you feel fine about putting in any thread.

Once again, for the very 'hard of hearing', and/or for the very 'slow at learning', I am not here, in this forum, to necessarily communicate, better, with you posters here.

Great, so you no longer do this. You once said you wanted to learn to communicate better and not just once. But now you are saying something different. I accept that now that you are not here to improve your communication. That information wouldn't have changed my post.

If this happens and occurs, the so be it and all well and good. But, to keep having to remind you "iwannaplato" that my intended target audience is not necessarily you nor any other poster here, would get tiresome to some

Which is exactly why to say 'I agreed with you' is false. That was not the act. The act was talking to other parties, not FJ, to tell them about human beings at this time.

Hopefully, one day, this sinks in and is understood, by you.

It's actually part of what I was pointing out.

I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, in order to show and reveal what has already have proof for.

You just said above

I am not here, in this forum, to necessarily communicate, better, with you posters here. You also said

my intended target audience is not necessarily you nor any other poster here[/quote]

If you are here to learn how to communicate better with your human beings, there you are here necessarily - it follows directly from your own assertion of your purpose - to do just that. Then

you are here to show and reveal what has already have proof for.

Then we are part of the target audience. Or perhaps this is all worded incredibly terribly.

Well, obviously, this claim of yours here could only be proved true if you, and/or others, started doing this?

Will you start doing this?

If no, then why not?

Because you lack some kind of basic intuition about human interaction. And I have tried many times to show you similar things that require an understanding of basic human interaction.

Did you find your own made up writing here 'hilarious'?

No. Not my writing. The idea I was satirizing itself is hilarious.

Also, you, still, do not seem to have comprehended how from 'the way'others respond and reply one can learn how a great deal in regards to how to communicate much better with others, at a later date.

Of course one can learn that way. Not relevant to the points I made nor the satire I wrote.

All these posts are an avoidance of considering the limited tools you bring to communication and the lack of social interaction with human beings who do give feedback to, might lead to the kinds of criticism your communication gets here. Behind the scenes, in private, you may consider this is possible, but here, you hide this. It is never openly considered.

PM me if you are willing to be honest about this.

[Iwannaplato]

But, I never ever to began to think such a thing as this.

Why have you presumed that I did?

Could it be possible that, just maybe, it is 'you' here who is somewhat confused about what has happened, and occurred, here?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world', nor in 'your view' of things, here?

You don't seem to understand that FJ just wants to elicit more of your obfuscation, so that other people here, who don't have your deficits, will find it amusing and learn from it. FJ isn't necessarily here to communicate with you. And he's not trying to learn how to communicate better from you - for obvious reasons.

See how silly your BS sounds?

If you don't want a focus on your behavior here and how you communicate, I suggest you stop talking to third parties in negative ways about human beings at the time this is being written. I suggest you not, with great regularity judge individuals here. Perhaps you don't realize you are doing these things. Earlier in this thread when I asked you if you could have communicated poorly in a different situation, you said...

I am always doing this. What a Truly stupid question to ask me.

I am here to learn how to communicate better. Or, have you forgotten this "iwannaplato".

Then given what you say here, perhaps when you communicate your thoughts about us, you are saying things that are judgmental and negative and our reactions are related to this. Perhaps you are writing in ways that are condescending or rude. I ask you not to call me 'it' I would think an abused child, now man, could simply respect this request. But no.
So often you label and judge people here, but if we look at the beginning of this thread we see what might be someone indicating a reason they are so defensive now without saying they are being defensive.

Perhaps you don't realize not just that the way you communicate is not conveying ideas well, at times, but also is putting people down, dehumanizing them,putting yourself above the people you are communicating with. Before anyone has said anything judgmental to you.

That's certainly what I've noticed.

[Iwannaplato]

In case you are, still, unaware, this is a 'philosophy forum, where arguments, ideas, views, et cetera, only, are meant to be 'looked at', 'delved into', and 'discussed'. This site was not set up, at all, for what has ended up as common place in a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where 'looking at', 'judging', and ridiculing people happens far, far to often.

Here, Age, is your first post as Age....

Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.

The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.

You just judged two large groups in a few different ways. You are not focused on ideas, but judging people.

This is the closing of your third post:

But please do not let facts get in the way of any of you trying to justify your own behaviors.

I hope you can see that this is judging people and what you see them not doing.

Wow. Another early post and you are making a joke, apart from other things.....
viewtopic.php?p=370936#p370936
Lovely.

In any case...another early post...

You are so blinded by the distorted beliefs that your have already gained that you can not even see the truth in what I write.

If you keep having those APE beliefs, then you will keep having those totally distorted human views of truth and reality.

In other words, you could have shown him his faulty logic, incorrect assumptions, done what you claim this philosophy forum is for, but you went ad hom.

It's human. You do these things. But if one were to read your response to me where you told what this forum was not for, a naive reader might think you are not, with the great regularity that you do it, judging both individuals and groups, often in wording that is aimed at all of humanity. Judging. And doing it not merely in response to others doing it to you, but just on your own initiative. It's the very essence of your first post as Age.

But the way you communicate....it implies and or states that you are not like us. You have no beliefs, or one belief, you don't debate, the human beings at this time arrive and opposed conclusions....all these fingerpointings and judgments of most people at this time.

Yet, you have the gall to tell me the very behavior you have engaged in from day one and continue to engage in is wrong here and put yourself on the moral high ground of lecturing about what we actually should be doing.

[Age]

But, not one of those four statements and claims of "flannel jesus" was Right nor Correct. Therefore, any claim of yours here, now, that "flannel jesus" is responding to at the very least other things that I was doing is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

LOL. Flannel Jesus isn't making claims about you, he's responding to the obvious implications of your writing.

LOL So, "iwannaplato" says and writes:
Flannel Jesus is responding to at the very least other things that Age was doing.

But, when I say and write;
any claim of yours here, now, that "flannel jesus" is responding to at the very least other things that I was doing is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Then you go on to say, and claim;
"flannel jesus" is not making claims about me, and that "flannel jesus" is, 'now', supposedly, responding to the obvious implications of my writings, instead.

So, was "flannel jesus" responding to, (at the very least), other things that I was, supposedly, doing, or was "he" not?

you cannot say and claim two opposing things here, and not appear to be contradicting "your" own 'self' here, at the same time.

Look, this is what "flannel jesus" actually said, and wrote:

Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

So, when "flannel jesus" wrote:
'Age, of course, being from the future, was different.'
'Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything.'
'In fact he ["age"] just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time.' And,
'There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.responding to what I was, supposedly, doing'. (In reference to what I was, again, doing, supposedly.)

Do you, still, want to believe and claim that "flannel jesus" is not making claims 'about me'?

And he does several times tell you that you need help with your writing.

And, I have several times told "flannel jesus" that it needs help with its reading and comprehension.

So, what does this actually mean, to you?

Again, this kind of misreading fits with myopic focus, hyper focus, perseveration and confusing about things like irony, the effects of context on what is written and other points I've made and others have made about your communication and understanding.

And, again also, you keep missing so, so much here. Which I have pointed out, to you, several times also, already.

And, you can claim whatever you like, but if that claim aligns with what is actually True and Right, or not, then that is a whole other thing.

A very complicated way of not quite saying you disagree.

Not to me it is not.

Also, I was not even saying, nor meaning, that 'I disagree', at all, anyway.

What I was actually saying, and meaning, is that just because you or someone else claims some thing, this does not mean that what you, or they claim, is True, nor Right.

you, really, really, do miss out on so, so much of what I say, and actually, mean here "iwannaplato".

So, once again, because you keep missing so much of what I say, and mean, here I will suggest, to you, that you cease the incessant assumption making, and to seek and find out what is actually being meant, prior.

If you did this, then you will not miss so much, and, you will also not be so Wrong as you are and as often as you are, here.

For someone who professes to be a "teacher" of the "english" language, you do write very 'sloppy', sometimes.

Yes, I type very fast and make errors sometimes.

Making 'errors' as often as you do, for a self-proclaimed and so-called "english teacher" is, in of itself, a very 'sloppy' thing to do, also.

Nice evasion.

'Nice evasion', supposedly, from 'wheat', exactly?

Besides the fact that your writing could have been to 'sloppy' to even read, and comprehend, Correctly, none of what you said, asked, and wrote there, in that quoted part of yours, was directed 'at me'. So, there was nothing for me to 'evade'.

See, here is another example of how much this one misses here. Even in its own, 'clumsy', writings it misses things.

In case you are, still, unaware, this is a 'philosophy forum, where arguments, ideas, views, et cetera, only, are meant to be 'looked at', 'delved into', and 'discussed'. This site was not set up, at all, for what has ended up as common place in a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where 'looking at', 'judging', and ridiculing people happens far, far to often.

You do the things that you are pointing out in me that you consider wrong here.

1. I never ever thought, let alone said and stated absolutely anywhere that I consider absolutely anything 'wrong' here. Once more, you, really, do need to stop your incessant 'assumption making'. It, really, does in the way of your ability to communicate with others fully, and Correctly.

What I did here was just point out what is meant to be done in 'philosophy forums', and, what this site and forum was not set up for. Yet, "iwannaplato", once again, misses this, and so does not 'see' this at all. Instead "iwannaplato" 'makes an assumption' that I am meaning something else entirely, and 'sees' 'its assumption', only.

2. If you consider 'those things' 'wrong', then why do you keep doing 'them'?

3. Once more, I am not doing 'those things', which you do, in 'the way' that 'you do'.

I am not sure how many times I have to inform you of this, before you comprehend and understand this. Nor, do I know how many different ways I have to explain to you how I do not do 'those things' that 'you do' in 'the way' that 'you do them', before that 'sinks in as well', as some would say here.

Or, your writing so poorly conveys your meaning that you are inadvertantly judging people and don't really mean it.

Could it only be these two things, only?

And, could you be making a completely Wrong assumption here for some other reason than my, supposed, 'poor writing'. For example, could it be your lack of comprehension and/or understanding skills that plays a part here, or maybe you making a 'Wrong assumption', which is leading to 'see' here what is not? Or, maybe you are believing your own made up assumptions to be true, which is 'blurring' your ability to 'see' things 'clearly' here. Or, maybe something else is going on, which both or one of 'us' has not yet even considered. So, there are so many things that could be happening here, which are what is causing and creating so much miscommunication here within our writings here, right?

Or, do you just believe that it is all or just about all 'my fault'?

After all 'you' are the "teacher of the english language", right, and surely 'you' must know 'much better' than 'I' do, correct?

I would prefer you just stopped doing this and solely and only focus on 'the words' I use, only.

Follow that rule yourself, if you think that is a good rule. You seem not to prefer to do that yourself.

When have I never done this?

Will you provide any actual examples for the readers here to 'look at', and 'see'?

If no, then why not?

However, I can not stop you from continually wanting to look a 'me, judge 'me', and continually try to ridicule and humiliated 'me'. However, when you do, this thread, and this topic, is where your judgmental views belong.

But your posts where you condescend to most or all the people of this time, those you feel fine about putting in any thread.

But, 'I' do not 'condescend' absolutely anyone. There is not one of you human beings who 'I' have 'condescend'.

you began assuming that 'that' was what I was doing. Then, you started 'believing' that 'that' is what I am doing. And, 'now' because you have the 'presumption' that this is what I am doing, when you 'look at' my writings you 'see' that 'this' is what I am doing.

Once again, I will suggest that you stop 'making assumptions', from the outset, then that way you can never ever be Wrong, like you, obviously, keep being here. If you do stop, then you will also not miss as much as you do in my writings, here. As for how much less you will miss 'we' will only find out, and know, if you ever start 'looking at' my writings from a non pre-assuming perspective. But, at the rate that you are moving along here, this will never happen in your lifetime, right?

Once again, for the very 'hard of hearing', and/or for the very 'slow at learning', I am not here, in this forum, to necessarily communicate, better, with you posters here.

Great, so you no longer do this.

So, I, supposedly, no longer do 'what', exactly?

For an "english teacher" you, really, do write so vaguely, so often. And, worse still you rarely, if ever, clarify.

But, hopefully, this time, you will clarify and inform 'us' readers here what you are saying and claiming that I, supposedly, no longer do.

Is one of the reasons why you rarely, if ever, clarify because you are afraid that if you do, then I will have the actual proof of, exactly, where you are Wrong and/or of just how Wrong you really are?

You once said you wanted to learn to communicate better and not just once.

Yes, and to clarify, learn to communicate better, with you human beings.

But now you are saying something different.

No I am not.

In fact, I just said, exactly, what I have said previously, and on more than one occasion.

Can you, really, still, not yet see just how much your 'assumption making' and 'your presumptions' really are affecting your ability to 'see' things properly, and Correctly, here?

It also appears that you cannot, yet, 'see' and tell the difference also.

I accept that now that you are not here to improve your communication.

Once again, you have completely and utterly misconceived, misconstrued, misinterpreted, misunderstood, mistook, or just missed what I was actually saying, and meaning, here. What you 'accept' here could not be anymore further from the actual Truth of things.

How can someone, of your supposed caliber, be so clumsy when it comes to comprehending, and understanding, what is actually being said, and meant, here?

After all, 'my words' are printed here clearly for anyone to 'look at', and 'see'. And, not one other one appears to have as much trouble and issue as you, clearly, do, to comprehend and understand what I am actually saying, and meaning.

That information wouldn't have changed my post.

Who cares?

'The information' that you, now, have is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. Just like a great deal of 'the information' that you ascertain and obtain from 'my writings' is.

If this happens and occurs, the so be it and all well and good. But, to keep having to remind you "iwannaplato" that my intended target audience is not necessarily you nor any other poster here, would get tiresome to some

Which is exactly why to say 'I agreed with you' is false. That was not the act. The act was talking to other parties, not FJ, to tell them about human beings at this time.

Of course that was what I was doing. That was blatantly obvious for all to see.

I just, also, pointed out when "flannel jesus's" made False claims 'about me', I also informed "fannel jesus", as well, that I just agreed with it, in regards to what it said.

For some unknown reason, well to me anyway, you and "flannel jesus" seem to be having a really hard time just accepting this.

Talk about making an issue out of no issue at all. Well absolutely 'no issue' to me, at all, anyway.

Hopefully, one day, this sinks in and is understood, by you.

It's actually part of what I was pointing out.

'What' were you pointing out, that 'it' has not yet 'sunk in' and 'understood', by you?

If yes, then this is already clearly known.

I am here to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings, in order to show and reveal what has already have proof for.

You just said above

I am not here, in this forum, to necessarily communicate, better, with you posters here.

Yes, they are 'my words'. So, yes, that is what I said, and wrote, above here. you are Correct here.

You also said

my intended target audience is not necessarily you nor any other poster here

If that is what I said, and wrote, here, then, yes, they are 'my words'.

If you are here to learn how to communicate better with your human beings, there you are here necessarily

Okay.

- it follows directly from your own assertion of your purpose - to do just that.

To do just 'what', exactly?

Are you not yet aware of how often you speak, vaguely. And, that others are not 'in that head', so to speak, 'to know' what 'the thought' is that is 'there', which your sentence here, and that word 'that' here specifically, is in relation to, exactly?

If you ever answer and clarify this question here, then 'we' are able to move on and have 'a discussion'. Until then, I wait.

Then

you are here to show and reveal what has already have proof for.

Then we are part of the target audience.

Why, and how, did you jump to this, assumed, conclusion?

Will you, at least, inform the readers of this?

Or perhaps this is all worded incredibly terribly.

Maybe so.

Or, just maybe, your continual presumptions 'about me' are effecting 'the way' you 'read', and can 'see' and comprehend, 'my words'.

For the unknownth time, I am not here, in this forum, to necessarily be, better, understood by you posters here. (Which, by the way, you are incidentally, directly, proving True). I am here, however, to learn how to communicate better, with you human beings. I am here to learn this in order to show my intended targeted audience what I already have been privy to and already have proof to and for. Once again, for you "iwannaplato", you, and other posters' here, are not necessarily 'my targeted audience'.

My 'targeted audience' will 'know' who they are, exactly.

you cannot seem to comprehend, and understand, that what I am learning 'now', from you posters here, I can use 'later on', for other human beings.

Well, obviously, this claim of yours here could only be proved true if you, and/or others, started doing this?

Will you start doing this?

If no, then why not?

Because you lack some kind of basic intuition about human interaction.

And, 'I' could say the exact same 'about you', especially considering 'the way' some of your interactions end up with other human beings here, in this forum.

And I have tried many times to show you similar things that require an understanding of basic human interaction.

Okay. But, why do you do this, and why do you want to keep doing this for, exactly?

Are you trying to 'teach' 'me' some thing?

Or, are 'you' trying to 'show' others how 'superior' you are, to 'me'?

Or, is there some other reason why you spend, what some consider, quite 'some time' trying to communicate with, or to, 'me'?

Did you find your own made up writing here 'hilarious'?

No. Not my writing. The idea I was satirizing itself is hilarious.

Are you aware that 'that idea' is a completely Wrong idea about what I was actually doing?

Or, do you, still, believe that 'the idea', which you have here, is not?

Also, you, still, do not seem to have comprehended how from 'the way'others respond and reply one can learn how a great deal in regards to how to communicate much better with others, at a later date.

Of course one can learn that way. Not relevant to the points I made nor the satire I wrote.

1. The, supposed, 'satire' that you wrote was not in relation to anything that that I was actually doing.

2. Why is me informing you that you, still, do not, yet, seem to have comprehended that it is possible for me to learn from 'you', posters, here 'now', in order to use 'those learning', at a 'later date', supposedly, not relevant to what you have Wrong assumed and claimed about in regards to my 'being here'?

All these posts are an avoidance of considering the limited tools you bring to communication and the lack of social interaction with human beings who do give feedback to, might lead to the kinds of criticism your communication gets here.

Just maybe I have not avoided considering what you claim, and, in fact, just maybe it is your 'limited tools' that you bring 'to communication', and the 'lack of social interactions with human beings, who do or do not give you feedback, which is leading to me pointing out where you are continually Wrong in your continual assumptions and beliefs 'about me'.

Just some thing to think about, and consider, but, obviously, you do not have to do either.

Behind the scenes, in private, you may consider this is possible, but here, you hide this. It is never openly considered.

So, this one believes that it is so 'superior' to another that is 'now' actually believes that it 'knows' what another is 'considering', or not.

Why are you 'so stuck' on communicating 'with me', in private?

And, if you want to have a private conversation, with 'me', then just, obviously, private message 'me'.

Also, 'I' would never be 'more open' with 'you', in private than 'I' am here.

Furthermore, maybe it is 'you' who wants to be 'more open', with 'me', in private, from, obviously, how evasive, closed, and narrow you are here, in public.

Maybe you would start admitting your Wrong doings in private. Like, for example, when I said, and claimed, that there are some things that every one can agree with, and accept, but you said, and claimed, that there are no things that everyone could agree on.

Although, you "yourself" named some thing that every one could agree on, and accept, you still would not and have not, yet, admitted this.

So, maybe the desire to speak, in private, is coming from an underlying sense of guilt, or something else, which you are trying to evade, in public, but which you would openly admit, in private.

PM me if you are willing to be honest about this.

As I informed you, previously, if you start admitting the Falsehoods, the Wrongs, and the mistakes you make here, in public, then I will start to consider private messaging you. you, however, are absolutely free to private message me absolutely any time you like.

[Age]

But, I never ever to began to think such a thing as this.

Why have you presumed that I did?

Could it be possible that, just maybe, it is 'you' here who is somewhat confused about what has happened, and occurred, here?

Or, is this not a possibility in 'your world', nor in 'your view' of things, here?

You don't seem to understand that FJ just wants to elicit more of your obfuscation, so that other people here, who don't have your deficits, will find it amusing and learn from it. FJ isn't necessarily here to communicate with you. And he's not trying to learn how to communicate better from you - for obvious reasons.

See how silly your BS sounds?

LOL I can certainly see, and very clearly, how your absolutely Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect interpretations of things here 'sounds'.

Pity though you believe that you have not misinterpreted things here.

If you don't want a focus on your behavior here and how you communicate, I suggest you stop talking to third parties in negative ways about human beings at the time this is being written.

And, conversely, if you do not want to focus on your behavior here and how you communicate, then I suggest you stop talking to third parties in negative ways 'about me', at any time.

I suggest you not, with great regularity judge individuals here.

Yet, here you are doing this very thing.

Perhaps you don't realize you are doing these things.

Perhaps you do not realize that you do this, or even how often you do this.

Earlier in this thread when I asked you if you could have communicated poorly in a different situation, you said...

I am always doing this. What a Truly stupid question to ask me.

I am here to learn how to communicate better. Or, have you forgotten this "iwannaplato".

Okay.

Then given what you say here, perhaps when you communicate your thoughts about us, you are saying things that are judgmental and negative and our reactions are related to this.

I have already, on more than one occasion, informed you that I am not making 'judgments' about anyone in a 'negative' sense at all. Why you cannot comprehend and understand this I put down to your beliefs and presumptions.

See, unlike you I do not 'judge' others in any negative sense at all. And, if you 'see' 'negative' in my views, or judgments, of you human beings, then this is because of the 'inner knowing' about what is Right and Wring, in Life, which I also talk about and rerfer to here, some times.

Perhaps you are writing in ways that are condescending or rude.

And, just as equally, perhaps I am not, but you believe or presume I am.

Be open and honest for once here "iwannaplato" and answer and clarify 'this question', 'Do you believe and/or presume that I am writing in ways that are condescending or rude?'

Let 'us' see if you can be open and honest, for at least just once "iwannaplato".

I ask you not to call me 'it'

Yes you do, and in a round about way sometimes.

I would think an abused child, now man, could simply respect this request. But no.

Why would you presume being 'abused' had absolutely anything to do with my choice to call an 'it', an 'it'?

Is 'that ego' and that 'superiority complex', of 'yours', so strong that 'you' being called just another 'thing', or an 'it', out of all of the other 'things' and 'its', in Life, really that upsetting, to 'you', that you have to keep going on and on about it?

By the way I 'know' that an already fully 'matured' and Truly 'grown up' one would never ever be affected by being called an 'it', nor a 'thing', like 'you' clearly are, because 'they' 'know' who and what 'they' are, exactly?

So often you label and judge people here,

But, if you were ever observant, then you would 'see' that every time I label 'you', human beings, I put you in double quotation marks. And, if you were ever curios and interested, in learning, and thus becoming wiser, then you would have already asked me, 'Why do you do that?'. And, if you ever did, then you would already 'know' that by doing so I have, absolutely, countered and defused 'the label'. you know like how when human beings hold their hands up and use their fingers to do a double quotation mark figure, to indicate that what they are saying they do not 'actually mean'.

See, I, already, 'know' that there is not one label, whatsoever, that you human beings can put on to 'you', human beings, that would actually stick. Even though you, adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, obviously, continually 'try to' label and put each other into 'labeled groups'. Of which absolutely none of them ever work.

But, obviously you would first have to be 'observant', 'curios', and 'interested' before you could even begun to have learned, and uncovered, this, by "yourself".

Also, 'judging' is a necessary part of Life, and living, otherwise one would get eaten, poisoned, harmed, or hurt way more often than they do. However, it is extremely simple and easy 'to judge' never in a 'negative way', but in order to help in learning, and growing, of "oneself" and in supporting 'others'.

'Judging', by the way, originally, came from an 'inner knowing'. you know, like how the story goes about how one 'knew' not to touch the shining, tempting, apple, beforehand, (before they ended up, still, doing it.) Do you 'know' about 'that story'?

'Negativity', and/or even 'positivity', however, are completely unnecessary things, in Life.

And, you seem to have a very one-sided and negative view of 'judging', itself.

Finding out and uncovering how to find, and 'know', what is actually True, in Life, is, and was, though a very helpful and rewarding thing to learn, and/or discover.

but if we look at the beginning of this thread we see what might be someone indicating a reason they are so defensive now without saying they are being defensive.

Maybe so. But, once again, you do not appear to comprehend and understand just how 'vague' you can really be here.

'I', for one, have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what 'it' that you are talking about and referring to here. And, based on past experiences asking you to clarify, for 'us', would just be a complete and utter waste of time. So, I will not, 'now'.

Perhaps you don't realize not just that the way you communicate is not conveying ideas well, at times, but also is putting people down, dehumanizing them,putting yourself above the people you are communicating with.

The word 'projection' could be used here, quite adequately, in regards to a few of the claims made just here.

Before anyone has said anything judgmental to you.

That's certainly what I've noticed.

Okay.

And, it could be 'quite amazing' what some people 'notice' and 'see', and what they 'miss', that is; if it was not already fully 'known' how and why all people are 'the way' that 'they are'.

[Age]

In case you are, still, unaware, this is a 'philosophy forum, where arguments, ideas, views, et cetera, only, are meant to be 'looked at', 'delved into', and 'discussed'. This site was not set up, at all, for what has ended up as common place in a lot of other sites and forums on the internet where 'looking at', 'judging', and ridiculing people happens far, far to often.

Here, Age, is your first post as Age....

Are you, really, that interested 'in me', and that focused 'on me', that you go to these sorts of lengths to discover and know more 'about me', or maybe to just 'judge me'?

Anyway,

Of course someone would agree with you. You make sense.

The reason physicists can not comprehend is because they are just like religionists. They both, by definition, have a very narrow way of looking at things. They both twist the definitions of words into a terminology that best suits either ones already held very narrow world view.

You just judged two large groups in a few different ways. You are not focused on ideas, but judging people.

Am I 'judging', in ways that you class as 'judging'? Or, am I just pointing out an irrefutable Fact? Or, is there something else going on here?

Were you not, yet, aware that those who 'self-label' and/or who 'self-class', "themselves", or who are 'labeled' and 'classed', as "physicists" and "religious", both, by the very fact of being labeled and classed 'the way they are' have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things?

If no, then 'now' you do.

The only way I am 'judging' here is like when I 'judge' 'a sheep' as an animal, which has four legs, wool, and eats grass.

I am not saying anything 'negative', nor 'positive', at all. I am just pointing out what those labels can mean or refer to, exactly.

This is the closing of your third post:

But please do not let facts get in the way of any of you trying to justify your own behaviors.

I hope you can see that this is judging people and what you see them not doing.

I hope you will, one day, stop 'making assumptions', stop 'believing things', and start being more curios and more open.

But, 'we' do not always get what 'we' 'hope' for, correct?

Also, hopefully you are starting to 'see' how there can be and are different forms of 'judging', and that not all 'judging' is how you perceive and believe they are.

Wow. Another early post and you are making a joke, apart from other things.....

Wow. you are so interested 'in me'.

What, actual, reason do you have for 'this interest'?

Also, and by the way, please do not stop having 'this interest', because the more you 'look' 'at me', then 'the more' that can be and will be revealed, and understood, here.

viewtopic.php?p=370936#p370936
Lovely.

In any case...another early post...

You are so blinded by the distorted beliefs that your have already gained that you can not even see the truth in what I write.

If you keep having those APE beliefs, then you will keep having those totally distorted human views of truth and reality.

In other words, you could have shown him his faulty logic, incorrect assumptions, done what you claim this philosophy forum is for, but you went ad hom.

What do you mean by 'ad hom' here, exactly?

And, is it a possibility in 'your world' or in 'your view' that I did not go 'ad hom'?

Also, let 'us' not forget that you have no idea nor clue what the word 'APE' is even meaning and referring to here.

Furthermore, and once again for your "iwannaplato", it is not 'my job' to, directly, inform nor show you human beings your 'faulty logic/s', incorrect assumptions, et cetera.

1. For reasons that you provide, very clearly, it can be just a complete waste of time.

2. I want to learn how to communicate better, so as to inform and show you human beings how you, "yourselves", can learn just how Truly simple and easy it is to find the actual Truths, in Life, like for example, where 'your own faulty logic' 'lays', exactly, where your own 'incorrect assumptions and beliefs' are, exactly, and so many other things.

It's human. You do these things.

you assume, believe, and perceive I do. However, until you actually seek out and obtain actual clarification and clarity, you will never ever 'know' what 'it' is that I am, actually, doing.

But if one were to read your response to me where you told what this forum was not for, a naive reader might think you are not, with the great regularity that you do it, judging both individuals and groups, often in wording that is aimed at all of humanity. Judging. And doing it not merely in response to others doing it to you, but just on your own initiative. It's the very essence of your first post as Age.

Okay. And, do you believe that there is some thing 'wrong' with 'judging', itself?

if yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

But, if no, then what is your continual apparent obsession with 'judging', here?

But the way you communicate....it implies and or states that you are not like us.

Wow, really?

What gave 'that' away? The use of 'the words', 'you human beings'?

Or, was it some thing else?

You have no beliefs, or one belief, you don't debate, the human beings at this time arrive and opposed conclusions....all these fingerpointings and judgments of most people at this time.

Again, you keep re-instating 'the obvious'.

What is the, actual, reason for doing 'this'?

Is 'this' some thing you do not like, or do not consider as 'right', or is there something else 'at play' here?

What is 'it' that is going on for you here "iwannaplato"?

Yet, you have the gall to tell me the very behavior you have engaged in from day one and continue to engage in is wrong here

Are you able to find the words where I have said, and written, that 'the very behavior' that I have engaged in from day one and continue to engage in, is 'wrong', here?

If no, then why do you assume or believe I have?

But, if yes, then will you link 'us' to 'there'?

and put yourself on the moral high ground of lecturing about what we actually should be doing.

Is there any possibility that you are just 'seeing', 'in me', what 'you', "yourself", actually do?

Or, is there absolutely no possibility at all of 'this'?

After all 'your job and role', in Life, is 'to lecture' others about what they 'should' be doing, correct?

And, if this is correct, then just maybe you doing this far more often than you realize, outside of your 'working life', but have just not, yet, noticed this, because you have just not yet, previously, considered 'this'?

Just some thing to think about, and consider.

Also, people do have a very strong, or even natural, tendency to 'see' 'in others', what they, "themselves", do. If you have not, yet, noticed.

[Flannel Jesus]

Funny that people, back in the days when this was written, wrapped their words in quote marks.

[Age]

Funny that people, back in the days when this was written, wrapped their words in quote marks.

Why is 'that', supposedly, 'funny', to you "flannel jesus"?

And, does this actually have anything at all to what I just pointed out and showed about where and how you were, and seemingly, still, seem to be, lost and confused here?

Look, just about all that you have imagined that I was saying, and meaning, here is just plain Wrong.

Accept this, and get over it. Or, keep carrying on as you have been.

[Flannel Jesus]

Funny that people, back in the days when this was written, wrapped their words in quote marks.

Why is 'that', supposedly, 'funny', to you "flannel jesus"?

And, does this actually have anything at all to what I just pointed out and showed about where and how you were, and seemingly, still, seem to be, lost and confused here?

Look, just about all that you have imagined that I was saying, and meaning, here is just plain Wrong.

Accept this, and get over it. Or, keep carrying on as you have been.

Why are you replying like this? I was just agreeing with you.

[Age]

Funny that people, back in the days when this was written, wrapped their words in quote marks.

Why is 'that', supposedly, 'funny', to you "flannel jesus"?

And, does this actually have anything at all to what I just pointed out and showed about where and how you were, and seemingly, still, seem to be, lost and confused here?

Look, just about all that you have imagined that I was saying, and meaning, here is just plain Wrong.

Accept this, and get over it. Or, keep carrying on as you have been.

Why are you replying like this?

To find out more. And, to point out some things.

I was just agreeing with you.

Okay, but in regards to 'what', exactly?

[Flannel Jesus]

Why is 'that', supposedly, 'funny', to you "flannel jesus"?

And, does this actually have anything at all to what I just pointed out and showed about where and how you were, and seemingly, still, seem to be, lost and confused here?

Look, just about all that you have imagined that I was saying, and meaning, here is just plain Wrong.

Accept this, and get over it. Or, keep carrying on as you have been.

Why are you replying like this?

To find out more. And, to point out some things.

I was just agreeing with you.

Okay, but in regards to 'what', exactly?

You put words in quotes. I was agreeing with you that people put words in quotes

[Age]

Why are you replying like this?

To find out more. And, to point out some things.

I was just agreeing with you.

Okay, but in regards to 'what', exactly?

You put words in quotes. I was agreeing with you that people put words in quotes

Okay.

Hopefully all is settled now.