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

[Flannel Jesus]

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


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.

It's funny and humourous that people back then would write "hopefully all is settled now".

[Age]

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

Okay.

Hopefully all is settled now.

It's funny and humourous that people back then would write "hopefully all is settled now".

Once more, okay.

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay.

Hopefully all is settled now.

It's funny and humourous that people back then would write "hopefully all is settled now".

Once more, okay.

I'm just agreeing with you.

[Iwannaplato]

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?

And here you are just reasserting your judgment. IOW I point out that you started your participation by judging, an activity you said this forum is not for, as part of criticizing me, and when I point this out you reassert your judgment'. Just confirming my point.

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.

OK, great. Then all I am doing when I judge you and your behavior here doing the above.

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

Sure, me too.

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.

This one will hopefully realize that what he sees as people judging him is actually Age making assumptions and believing things. I and others are merely describing him, as one might describe a goat, for example. One thing about humans as opposed to goats, is that there is a greater chance that a human will change his or her behavior. This one will find that if he stops doing certain things then the descriptions of him will change. Of course, if a goat regularly eats people's shoes, but later stops eating people's shoes, the description of the goat's behavior will change also.

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

Wow. you are so interested 'in me'.

I notice that you are very interested in me. You keep responding to all my posts, even when I do not respond to all of yours. Even my posts that are clearly not necessarily communicating with you, but are using your posts to communicate with others.

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.

OK, great. I'll ignore your earlier assertion that you would prefer I stop doing this.

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?

It means to the man. It is not aimed (just) at the ideas, but it is aimed at the person. It judged him, that thing this forum is not set up for, in your mind.

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

This is yet another example of this one avoiding weighing in himself on whether it was 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.

This one seems to think that the sentences would not be ad hom if APE meant something other than what I think it does.

Notice how this one avoids taking any clear stand on the issue. He implies things.

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.

Of course. In fact you put more effort into avoiding it, often with more words than it would take to clarify. Which is fine.

You just keep revealing how one can avoid looking at your own
Cognitive Dissonance
Rationalization
Hypocrisy
Self-Serving Bias
Projection
Double Standard

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.

No, you reveal a lot.

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

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

it was you who judged judging. Which is funny in a couple of ways.

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?

Well, as you said when I asked for clarification about absolute...

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

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?

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all, Age.
and
Here is a another prime example of why it took this human being, these days, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

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?

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all, Age.
and
Here is a another prime example of why it took this human being, these days, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

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

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, and it seems like it was a good idea; moving my post to a different one of your threads. I really didn't care which of your threads it was in. I just realized that if I responded to your off-topic post, I was, yet again, participating in your hijacking of threads. If you feel better about my post being part of this thread of yours, rather than the other, it was a good choice on your part to move it here. And hopefully off-topic posts like the one I responded to, where you 'agreed with FJ's assertion that he had the opposite opinion from the OP writer' can be kept in your threads also.

Or, heck, just avoided altogether, given that, if that was what you were doing, you were just stating the obvious.

[Age]

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?

And here you are just reasserting your judgment. IOW I point out that you started your participation by judging, an activity you said this forum is not for, as part of criticizing me, and when I point this out you reassert your judgment'.

you, once again, seem to be having a great deal of trouble differentiating between the two different meanings here.

Just confirming my point.

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.

OK, great. Then all I am doing when I judge you and your behavior here doing the above.

Okay. But, now I am not sure why 'you' want 'me' to seek out 'help' from others, to change.

And, if 'this' is finally settled, are 'we' able to move on, now?

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

Sure, me too.

Are you absolutely 'sure' that this is all you are doing, here?

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.

Of course, it is judging you people.

But, it is not 'judging' you people in any 'negative' or 'criticizing' way.

Which is what you cannot seem to comprehend, and understand, here.

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.

This one will hopefully realize that what he sees as people judging him is actually Age making assumptions and believing things.

Once again, this one, because of its beliefs, is not able to 'recognize' nor 'see' anything past what it is 'currently' holding onto as being true.

There is, obviously, no use in ever telling you, once more, that I only believe (in) one thing, and it is certainly not what you believe here, because you are, obviously, absolutely closed to ever 'listening' 'to me' or ever even beginning to ever try to just 'understand' 'me'.

So, I will leave you alone here to believe absolutely any thing want 'about me'.

If you want to believe that I am making assumptions and believing things, here, while you never ever produce absolutely any actual thing that backs up and supports your beliefs and assumptions, here, then, by all means, keep on doing that. I will, again, highly suggest that by doing so, before you even attempt to try to obtain absolutely any clarity at all first, then you will continue to make so many False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions, like you continually have been doing.

I and others are merely describing him, as one might describe a goat, for example.

Great. But, you, and others, have already been informed when you have been Wrong, some times. At other times I just leave you to your False and Wrong descriptions.

One thing about humans as opposed to goats, is that there is a greater chance that a human will change his or her behavior.

Well you, "iwannaplato", have absolutely shown no sign of this, so far anyway.

This one will find that if he stops doing certain things then the descriptions of him will change.

See how absolutely 'vague' this one can be, and is?

LOL If I, supposedly, stop doing 'certain things', then ...

I explain the exact specific things that I suggest you change. Whereas all you can, vaguely, refer to is 'certain things'. Which could be just about absolutely any thing here.

Of course, if a goat regularly eats people's shoes, but later stops eating people's shoes, the description of the goat's behavior will change also.

Maybe so of 'that goat', but, obviously, not of 'goats'.

Here is another difference between 'you' and 'I' "iwannaplato"

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

Wow. you are so interested 'in me'.

I notice that you are very interested in me. You keep responding to all my posts, even when I do not respond to all of yours.

But, I am interested in 'the words', under the label "iwannaplato". Whereas, 'you' are interested in 'me'.

As you keep, clearly, showing, and proving, here.

Even my posts that are clearly not necessarily communicating with you, but are using your posts to communicate with others.

Again, as above.

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.

OK, great. I'll ignore your earlier assertion that you would prefer I stop doing this.

Again, 'we' see the use of the vague 'this'.

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?

It means to the man. It is not aimed (just) at the ideas, but it is aimed at the person. It judged him, that thing this forum is not set up for, in your mind.

But, I just pointed out that if 'that one' just stopped having those 'APE beliefs', then it would, also, stop having those totally human being distorted views of truth, and, of reality.

Do you find some thing 'wrong' with doing this?

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

This is yet another example of this one avoiding weighing in himself on whether it was ad hom.

Are you slow, or some thing else, here, obviously, I had to 'wait', to 'see' what you actually meant by 'ad hom'. And, just as obvious, it is only 'now', in this post of yours, you are explaining what you actually meant, by 'ad hom'. So, only 'now' can I 'weigh in' on whether 'it' was what you meant, or not.

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

This one seems to think that the sentences would not be ad hom if APE meant something other than what I think it does.

What a Truly stupid thing to think, and claim. I never ever thought any such thing, nor would have ever though any such thing, as this, here.

Notice how this one avoids taking any clear stand on the issue. He implies things.

LOL Once again you are the one 'implying' things, here, by being 'very vague' by using the word 'issue', here.

Now, what is 'the issue', exactly, which I, supposedly, am avoiding in taking 'any clear stand on'?

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.

Of course. In fact you put more effort into avoiding it, often with more words than it would take to clarify. Which is fine.

OF COURSE I DO.

And, I have, already, on many, many occasions explained, exactly, why I do.

How many times do you have to be informed that I do things for very specific reasons. Therefore, I do not, directly, inform you human beings of some things, for very specific reasons. And, if you had any 'curiosity' left here, then you would ask and find out why.

You just keep revealing how one can avoid looking at your own
Cognitive Dissonance
Rationalization
Hypocrisy
Self-Serving Bias
Projection
Double Standard

Once again, this could be 'projection', at its best.

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.

No, you reveal a lot.

Really?

If yes, then why do you miss, misinterpret, and misunderstand so, so much here, in my writings?

And, if, as you claim, 'I' reveal a lot, then what is 'it', that I am, actually, doing here.

Please, show 'us', just once, that you can, actually, back up and support your beliefs and claims here.

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

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

it was you who judged judging. Which is funny in a couple of ways.

So, once more, absolutely no clarification is provided, at all.

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?

Well, as you said when I asked for clarification about absolute...

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

So, to you, what I said and wrote here, implies or states, to you, that 'I' am not like 'you', human beings.

Okay.

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.

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all, Age.

Okay.

and
Here is a another prime example of why it took this human being, these days, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.


you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all, Age.

So, it seems that you, really, are not able to find those words anywhere. Which implies that you are just, once again, 'making up assumptions', and then 'believing' those assumptions are true and right.

and
Here is a another prime example of why it took this human being, these days, so, so long to find the actual Truth of things, and to move forward, in Life.

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

In regards to 'what', exactly?

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

And here you are just reasserting your judgment. IOW I point out that you started your participation by judging, an activity you said this forum is not for, as part of criticizing me, and when I point this out you reassert your judgment'.

you, once again, seem to be having a great deal of trouble differentiating between the two different meanings here.

It's funny that, back in the days when this was written, people used to say others had trouble differentiating between meanings.

[Iwannaplato]

you, once again, seem to be having a great deal of trouble differentiating between the two different meanings here.

Well, at least you used the word 'seem', otherwise you would have been mistaken.

Just confirming my point.

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.

OK, great. Then all I am doing when I judge you and your behavior here doing the above.

Okay. But, now I am not sure why 'you' want 'me' to seek out 'help' from others, to change.

I am sure you are not sure. Let me know if you want to take a guess.

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

Sure, me too.

Are you absolutely 'sure' that this is all you are doing, here?

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things.

Are you absolutely sure

I've informed you before about my assertions in relation to the words with 'absolute' as a root. You don't remember things.

Of course, it is judging you people. But, it is not 'judging' you people in any 'negative' or 'criticizing' way.

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things

Which is what you cannot seem to comprehend, and understand, here.

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things

Once again, this one, because of its beliefs, is not able to 'recognize' nor 'see' anything past what it is 'currently' holding onto as being true.

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things
You, Age, are, obviously, absolutely closed to ever 'listening' 'to me' or ever even beginning to ever try to just 'understand' 'me'.

So, I will leave you alone here to believe absolutely any thing want 'about me'.

I'm not alone.

If you, Age, want to believe that I am alone while you never ever produce absolutely any actual thing that backs up and supports this belief, here, then, by all means, keep on doing that.[/quote]

I and others are merely describing him, as one might describe a goat, for example.

Great.

Thank you.

This one will find that if he stops doing certain things then the descriptions of him will change.

See how absolutely 'vague' this one can be, and is?

You seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all. You have already forgotten specific behaviors that I have criticized, even in recent posts. This is unfortunate. Not so much the specific, but that you have memory issues. You seem to notice when I satirize your way of communicating. Perhaps you don't realize this indicates certain things that it would be good if you stopped.

LOL If I, supposedly, stop doing 'certain things', then ...

I explain the exact specific things that I suggest you change. Whereas all you can, vaguely, refer to is 'certain things'. Which could be just about absolutely any thing here.

Oh, dear. You really do have a memory problem.

But, I am interested in 'the words', under the label "iwannaplato". Whereas, 'you' are interested in 'me'.

As you keep, clearly, showing, and proving, here.

Hm. This is a lie. You've gossiped about my behavior in threads that weren't on the same topic. OH, wait, sorry. It might not be a lie. This could also be a memory issue.

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.

OK, great. I'll ignore your earlier assertion that you would prefer I stop doing this.

Again, 'we' see the use of the vague 'this'.

You're right. Given your memory issues, I should have quoted what you'd said in another post. I can't expect you to remember what you say, nor for whatever you say about yourself to be true, so you have continued access to it.

But, I just pointed out that if 'that one' just stopped having those 'APE beliefs', then it would, also, stop having those totally human being distorted views of truth, and, of reality.

Sure, and if you stopped doing the things that I pointed out, your communication would be less toxic and you'd find people interested in collaborating with you, interested in your ideas, etc.

Are you slow, or some thing else,

Did someone call you slow and now you look for opportunities to aim this at others.

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

This one seems to think that the sentences would not be ad hom if APE meant something other than what I think it does.

What a Truly stupid thing to think, and claim. I never ever thought any such thing, nor would have ever though any such thing, as this, here.

Oh, great. The way you wrote indicated you were saying something your consider Truly stupid. Oh, continue to never clarify, which is what others would do in this situation. Just pseudo-clarify but saying what it doesn't mean. I understand that it can only ever possibly help a conversation move forward if one only clarifies when directly asked.

Notice how this one avoids taking any clear stand on the issue. He implies things.

LOL Once again you are the one 'implying' things, here, by being 'very vague' by using the word 'issue', here.

I get it, memories issues. I'll have to mull over how to communicate with you given your complete disconnection from context. I thought you had a forest/trees issue, but it seems to be a short term to long term memory transfer issue.

I will find a better way to communicate with someone with that issue. (oh, God...by 'that issue' I mean the memory problem you have.)

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.

Of course. In fact you put more effort into avoiding it, often with more words than it would take to clarify. Which is fine.

OF COURSE I DO.

And, I have, already, on many, many occasions explained, exactly, why I do.

I agreed with you.

How many times do you have to be informed that I do things for very specific reasons.

I never needed to be informed of this.
Everyone does things for specific reasons.

Therefore, I do not, directly, inform you human beings of some things, for very specific reasons. And, if you had any 'curiosity' left here, then you would ask and find out why.

You seem to have forgotten that I once asked you questions for a long time about a similar issue. Eventually you even told me my questions were not phrased correctly. So, I ignored your tone and simply rephrased it the way you suggested. Then you told me you couldn't/wouldn't answer it. I know you can't remember the past very well, so you likely won't believe this happened. But your inability to remember isn't, in this instance and perhaps others, going to inhibit me from telling the truth. Instead of, at the beginning of the process, telling me you weren't going to answer, you presented as series of hoops, down the wording. When I finally did all that according to your expectations, you refused to answer. And now, that leads to LOL. At the time it was irritating.

There have been other ways you have made asking clarifying questions or asking for explanations unnecessarily Sisyphus-ian.

One of the consequences is that I lost interest in the processes you chide people for not carrying out.

I won't even bother to point out the hypocrisy of how you treated my asking for clarification around 'absolute'.

Once again, this could be 'projection', at its best.

I actually do believe you believe that.

And, if, as you claim, 'I' reveal a lot, then what is 'it', that I am, actually, doing here.

I've told you in dozens of posts and hundreds of assertions what you are doing here.

Please, show 'us', just once, that you can, actually, back up and support your beliefs and claims here.

Nah, I'll take a card from your approach to communication and avoid, with you, doing any more of that.

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

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

it was you who judged judging. Which is funny in a couple of ways.

So, once more, absolutely no clarification is provided, at all.

Because you need to ask yourself. If you actually read my post and remembered it, then you would notice that I worked from your attitude about judging, which I quoted. You need to ask yourself what is wrong with judging.

I think judging can be fine, in either of the two senses you have mentioned, depending on the context.

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?

Well, as you said when I asked for clarification about absolute...

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

So, to you, what I said and wrote here, implies or states, to you, that 'I' am not like 'you', human beings.

Okay.

Or, it's possible you have not merely a very poor way of communicating, but tremendous resistance when such things are pointed out to you. And if the latter is the case, you perhaps don't know your own motivations so well yourself.

I would thank Age for continuing to reveal more of what he is doing here, but I am not necessarily writing this post to communicate with him. I could say one way or the other, but it's fun to avoid clarity, by saying what I am not necessarily doing. LOL

[Iwannaplato]

Is it on purpose that this thread has Age written in the title as "age"?
If so, why?
Is this thread not about Age?

[Atla]

you, once again, seem to be having a great deal of trouble differentiating between the two different meanings here.

Well, at least you used the word 'seem', otherwise you would have been mistaken.

Just confirming my point.

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.

OK, great. Then all I am doing when I judge you and your behavior here doing the above.

Okay. But, now I am not sure why 'you' want 'me' to seek out 'help' from others, to change.

I am sure you are not sure. Let me know if you want to take a guess.

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

Sure, me too.

Are you absolutely 'sure' that this is all you are doing, here?

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things.

Are you absolutely sure

I've informed you before about my assertions in relation to the words with 'absolute' as a root. You don't remember things.

Of course, it is judging you people. But, it is not 'judging' you people in any 'negative' or 'criticizing' way.

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things

Which is what you cannot seem to comprehend, and understand, here.

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things

Once again, this one, because of its beliefs, is not able to 'recognize' nor 'see' anything past what it is 'currently' holding onto as being true.

You have a very narrowed, and even closed, way of looking at things
You, Age, are, obviously, absolutely closed to ever 'listening' 'to me' or ever even beginning to ever try to just 'understand' 'me'.

So, I will leave you alone here to believe absolutely any thing want 'about me'.

I'm not alone.

If you, Age, want to believe that I am alone while you never ever produce absolutely any actual thing that backs up and supports this belief, here, then, by all means, keep on doing that.

I and others are merely describing him, as one might describe a goat, for example.

Great.

Thank you.

This one will find that if he stops doing certain things then the descriptions of him will change.

See how absolutely 'vague' this one can be, and is?

You seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all. You have already forgotten specific behaviors that I have criticized, even in recent posts. This is unfortunate. Not so much the specific, but that you have memory issues. You seem to notice when I satirize your way of communicating. Perhaps you don't realize this indicates certain things that it would be good if you stopped.

LOL If I, supposedly, stop doing 'certain things', then ...

I explain the exact specific things that I suggest you change. Whereas all you can, vaguely, refer to is 'certain things'. Which could be just about absolutely any thing here.

Oh, dear. You really do have a memory problem.

But, I am interested in 'the words', under the label "iwannaplato". Whereas, 'you' are interested in 'me'.

As you keep, clearly, showing, and proving, here.

Hm. This is a lie. You've gossiped about my behavior in threads that weren't on the same topic. OH, wait, sorry. It might not be a lie. This could also be a memory issue.

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.

OK, great. I'll ignore your earlier assertion that you would prefer I stop doing this.

Again, 'we' see the use of the vague 'this'.

You're right. Given your memory issues, I should have quoted what you'd said in another post. I can't expect you to remember what you say, nor for whatever you say about yourself to be true, so you have continued access to it.

But, I just pointed out that if 'that one' just stopped having those 'APE beliefs', then it would, also, stop having those totally human being distorted views of truth, and, of reality.

Sure, and if you stopped doing the things that I pointed out, your communication would be less toxic and you'd find people interested in collaborating with you, interested in your ideas, etc.

Are you slow, or some thing else,

Did someone call you slow and now you look for opportunities to aim this at others.

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

This one seems to think that the sentences would not be ad hom if APE meant something other than what I think it does.

What a Truly stupid thing to think, and claim. I never ever thought any such thing, nor would have ever though any such thing, as this, here.

Oh, great. The way you wrote indicated you were saying something your consider Truly stupid. Oh, continue to never clarify, which is what others would do in this situation. Just pseudo-clarify but saying what it doesn't mean. I understand that it can only ever possibly help a conversation move forward if one only clarifies when directly asked.

Notice how this one avoids taking any clear stand on the issue. He implies things.

LOL Once again you are the one 'implying' things, here, by being 'very vague' by using the word 'issue', here.

I get it, memories issues. I'll have to mull over how to communicate with you given your complete disconnection from context. I thought you had a forest/trees issue, but it seems to be a short term to long term memory transfer issue.

I will find a better way to communicate with someone with that issue. (oh, God...by 'that issue' I mean the memory problem you have.)

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.

Of course. In fact you put more effort into avoiding it, often with more words than it would take to clarify. Which is fine.

OF COURSE I DO.

And, I have, already, on many, many occasions explained, exactly, why I do.

I agreed with you.

How many times do you have to be informed that I do things for very specific reasons.

I never needed to be informed of this.
Everyone does things for specific reasons.

Therefore, I do not, directly, inform you human beings of some things, for very specific reasons. And, if you had any 'curiosity' left here, then you would ask and find out why.

You seem to have forgotten that I once asked you questions for a long time about a similar issue. Eventually you even told me my questions were not phrased correctly. So, I ignored your tone and simply rephrased it the way you suggested. Then you told me you couldn't/wouldn't answer it. I know you can't remember the past very well, so you likely won't believe this happened. But your inability to remember isn't, in this instance and perhaps others, going to inhibit me from telling the truth. Instead of, at the beginning of the process, telling me you weren't going to answer, you presented as series of hoops, down the wording. When I finally did all that according to your expectations, you refused to answer. And now, that leads to LOL. At the time it was irritating.

There have been other ways you have made asking clarifying questions or asking for explanations unnecessarily Sisyphus-ian.

One of the consequences is that I lost interest in the processes you chide people for not carrying out.

I won't even bother to point out the hypocrisy of how you treated my asking for clarification around 'absolute'.

Once again, this could be 'projection', at its best.

I actually do believe you believe that.

And, if, as you claim, 'I' reveal a lot, then what is 'it', that I am, actually, doing here.

I've told you in dozens of posts and hundreds of assertions what you are doing here.

Please, show 'us', just once, that you can, actually, back up and support your beliefs and claims here.

Nah, I'll take a card from your approach to communication and avoid, with you, doing any more of that.

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

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

it was you who judged judging. Which is funny in a couple of ways.

So, once more, absolutely no clarification is provided, at all.

Because you need to ask yourself. If you actually read my post and remembered it, then you would notice that I worked from your attitude about judging, which I quoted. You need to ask yourself what is wrong with judging.

I think judging can be fine, in either of the two senses you have mentioned, depending on the context.

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?

Well, as you said when I asked for clarification about absolute...

you seem to, really, not be able to work things out here, at all.

So, to you, what I said and wrote here, implies or states, to you, that 'I' am not like 'you', human beings.

Okay.

Or, it's possible you have not merely a very poor way of communicating, but tremendous resistance when such things are pointed out to you. And if the latter is the case, you perhaps don't know your own motivations so well yourself.

I would thank Age for continuing to reveal more of what he is doing here, but I am not necessarily writing this post to communicate with him. I could say one way or the other, but it's fun to avoid clarity, by saying what I am not necessarily doing. LOL

I can never work out if you're just approaching Age kinda like how a communication trainer would and are merely making dispassionate observations, or you're the devil incarnate himself and are putting Age through some next level torture where you are expecting her to behave as if she was a normal human being, even though she seems to be missing some crucial brain/mind parts so it's impossible for her to do so.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is it on purpose that this thread has Age written in the title as "age"?
If so, why?
Is this thread not about Age?

Why did people, back in the days when this was written, make so many assumptions instead of just asking?

[Iwannaplato]

I can never work out if you're just approaching Age kinda like how a communication trainer would and are merely making dispassionate observations, or you're the devil incarnate himself and are putting Age through some next level torture where you are expecting her to behave as if she was a normal human being, even though she seems to be missing some crucial brain/mind parts so it's impossible for her to do so.

I don't want to rule out the potential for Age accurately introspecting and being affected by what he notices. Not ruling that out might make me cruel, yes.

Where did you find this out:

Age was hit as a child because of her/his inability to understand basic human? Would explain a lot..

[Iwannaplato]

Is it on purpose that this thread has Age written in the title as "age"?
If so, why?
Is this thread not about Age?

Why did people, back in the days when this was written, make so many assumptions instead of just asking?

Because they weren't necessarily communicating with the people whose posts they were quoting.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is it on purpose that this thread has Age written in the title as "age"?
If so, why?
Is this thread not about Age?

Why did people, back in the days when this was written, make so many assumptions instead of just asking?

Because they weren't necessarily communicating with the people whose posts they were quoting.

If 'you' could just ASK me instead of 'going' into this CONVERSATION thinking you know 'everything', then maybe you will learn some phil-o-sophy.

[Atla]

Where did you find this out:

Age was hit as a child because of her/his inability to understand basic human? Would explain a lot..

I was merely wondering. Age who generally doesn't know anything about human interactions, suddenly came up with a rather specific scenario, I was merely wondering if it came from experience.

I have never his a child and I do not call it love when others do.

Did your parents ever hit you, punish you, humiliate you, or ridicule you?

If no, are you sure?

But, if yes, then did they 'try to justify' this Wrong behaving as 'you needed this', or, 'I do this because I love you', or, 'It's tough love'?

Could they have done this kind of 'attempts at justification' without you ever hearing those exact words?

Also, why have you never hit a child? Do you have children?