"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

But, you are just more lost and more confused here now.

I never ever did what you said and claimed here. you seem to be missing more here, now. Which I did not think would have been possible.


So, you like to do what others see as plain 'errors' not just in writing, but in thinking as well. But, okay.


Why did you imagine you missed 'this', previously?

Calm down, Age.

Why did you presume and/or believe that I was 'not calmed down'?

Your formatting is haywire.

Where, when, and how often, exactly?

And, if it is in the posts that you respond to, have you thought of correctly it, like I do?

If you're a human being, then you're worthy of dignity. If not, then you may still be worthy of dignity.

If 'I' am 'not a human being', then why are you telling 'me' to 'calm down'?

What other things in the Universe could actually 'calm down', exactly?

[Gary Childress]

If 'I' am 'not a human being', then why are you telling 'me' to 'calm down'?

What other things in the Universe could actually 'calm down', exactly?

I don't know. Perhaps cephalopods or some intelligent alien species or a supercomputer that is either sentient or else mimics sentience maybe? I assume you are a human being, however, AI these days seems to be pretty sophisticated as well, so just in case I'm wrong about you being a human being, I wanted to say that some entities that aren't human probably also deserve dignity (though that might be a human prejudice, I don't know).

\_(*_*)_/

[henry quirk]

what did you actually mean and/or are referring to with your use of the 'path' word here, exactly?

Allow me to rephrase (and clarify): a stranger walks in to my yard as I sit under the Oak sipping lemonade. I ask him to state his business. He does not. Instead, he continues walking. Where's he walking to? Toward me? Toward my home? Across the yard, apparently intending to simply cross and go on his way?

I can't tell you what I would do without details.

[henry quirk]

I think 'our discussion' is going, exactly, how and where I was thinking it will end up.

Fantastic...

[Age]

what did you actually mean and/or are referring to with your use of the 'path' word here, exactly?

Allow me to rephrase (and clarify): a stranger walks in to my yard as I sit under the Oak sipping lemonade.

'We' had, already, established that a "stranger" [human being] was, already, walking into what you call and claim 'your yard'. If you do want to, really, clarify here, then 'look at' what I, actually asked you 'to clarify'.

I ask him to state his business. He does not. Instead, he continues walking. Where is he walking to? Toward me? Toward my home? Across the yard, apparently intending to simply cross and go on his way?

I can't tell you what I would do without details.

But, you have already informed me that, 'you will shoot them if they come into what you call and claim is 'your property' and try to take off with what you say and claim is 'yours', even if it is just a toothpick, or even lesser than a toothpick.'

So, 'the details', 'this time', are; the human being does not talk, nor stop, when you question them.

Also, you have already said and claimed that you would shoot a human being if they were just standing what you call and claim 'your home', and with no questions asked, by you.

So, what 'it' is that you are actually trying to reach or achieve here, 'we' are waiting to 'see'.

And, the longer you keep trying to deflect or stall here, then the longer you will 'get to' wherever it is that you want to here.

[Atla]

But only you replied to it. I certainly never replied to it.

Then why was it written by 'age' and not me?

The abuse of children is NOT some 'silly little issue', at all. Even though you may think so "atla".

What I really do not care one iota about, at all, is the actual very tiny, insignificant and extremely little 'issues' that a lot of you adult human beings, like 'you' "atla", continually go on with and about.

[henry quirk]

So, 'the details', 'this time', are; the human being does not talk, nor stop, when you question them.

I'm sorry but there's simply not enough detail in your scenario.

the longer you will 'get to' wherever it is that you want to here.

I have no destination or endpoint or wherever in mind. This is an open-ended conversation.

[Iwannaplato]

But, you are just more lost and more confused here now. I never ever did what you said and claimed here. you seem to be missing more here, now. Which I did not think would have been possible.

Oh, ok. I thought you wrote this sentence:

Who is, obviously, the only one' who, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

Which in traditional and current grammar lacks a main clause and is a sentence fragment or incomplete sentence (not unlike this sentence of mine). I think that's one of the things I said. But I guess it was merely an unintentional error on your part. I've seen you intentionally break the rules of grammar, for a purpose, so I thought this was an instance of that. But it sure was a sentence fragment/incomplete sentence.

So, you like to do what others see as plain 'errors' not just in writing, but in thinking as well. But, okay.

Oh, I think people understand precisely the kind of 'error' you made, for example, and what you meant. Much of literature contains what can be considered grammatical errors, but this is done, often, by people who are trying to express things in ways where this seems the best solution. In Philosophy, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Butler, Kristiva...to name a few from the 20th century, make similar choices to use idiosyncratic language. That's why dialogue is often useful. Philosophers often make up words or use challenging typography. A love of knowledge is not going to be restricted by grammar rules - which themselves shift over time as new patterns arise.

Why did you imagine you missed 'this', previously?

I didn't.

[Age]

But only you replied to it. I certainly never replied to it.

Then why was it written by 'age' and not me?

The abuse of children is NOT some 'silly little issue', at all. Even though you may think so "atla".

What I really do not care one iota about, at all, is the actual very tiny, insignificant and extremely little 'issues' that a lot of you adult human beings, like 'you' "atla", continually go on with and about.

So, exactly, as I said and pointed out, you replied to it, not me.

Thank you for, again, highlighting this

[Age]

So, 'the details', 'this time', are; the human being does not talk, nor stop, when you question them.

I'm sorry but there's simply not enough detail in your scenario.

the longer you will 'get to' wherever it is that you want to here.

I have no destination or endpoint or wherever in mind.

you, previously, wanted to disprove my claims and accusations about you. But, since you have realised you can not, so 'now' you, supposedly, have no destination nor endpoint here.

This is an open-ended conversation.

Okay, because you have already said that you will shoot and will beat up human beings, if they do not do what you want them to do, then you have, already, proved True the claims and accusations that I made about you.

[Age]

But, you are just more lost and more confused here now. I never ever did what you said and claimed here. you seem to be missing more here, now. Which I did not think would have been possible.

Oh, ok. I thought you wrote this sentence:

Who is, obviously, the only one' who, actually, 'knows' what the 'True intended meaning', really, was, and is.

Which in traditional and current grammar lacks a main clause and is a sentence fragment or incomplete sentence (not unlike this sentence of mine).

Besides you, of course, others could clearly see, recognize, and know who that 'who' was in reference to, exactly.

Which was not like your sentence was at all, which was plainly, traditionally, grammatically incorrect.

If you could not see and recognize which 'who' the 'who' was related to, then you might need to freshen up in your learning of how to see and follow context in posts. Maybe you are breaking down paragraphs and/or sentences too much, and thus not following the actual context and intended meaning of the whole. But, you do have a tendency to miss quite a lot anyway in my writings. Have you considered seeking help from others in how to guide you so that you do not miss as much as you do here?

I think that's one of the things I said. But I guess it was merely an unintentional error on your part. I've seen you intentionally break the rules of grammar, for a purpose, so I thought this was an instance of that. But it sure was a sentence fragment/incomplete sentence.

Only if one failed to relate 'that sentence' with the direct 'preceding sentence'. Is this what you did?

If no, then how could you have not correlated the two together?

So, you like to do what others see as plain 'errors' not just in writing, but in thinking as well. But, okay.

Oh, I think people understand precisely the kind of 'error' you made, for example, and what you meant. Much of literature contains what can be considered grammatical errors, but this is done, often, by people who are trying to express things in ways where this seems the best solution. In Philosophy, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Butler, Kristiva...to name a few from the 20th century, make similar choices to use idiosyncratic language. That's why dialogue is often useful. Philosophers often make up words or use challenging typography. A love of knowledge is not going to be restricted by grammar rules - which themselves shift over time as new patterns arise.

So, what is 'it' that you are trying to or wanting to say or express here, exactly?

Why did you imagine you missed 'this', previously?

I didn't.

Okay. So, how could 'it' have been an 'error', to you alone?

If you did not miss 'it' previously, then why are you implying that you could not make sense of 'it', or that 'it' was an 'error'.

Obviously, if you did not miss 'it', then you saw and recognized what was being meant.

[henry quirk]

you, previously, wanted to disprove my claims and accusations about you

No. I haven't attempted, am not attempting, won't attempt, have no reason to attempt, to disprove anything. You made claims about me. I asked that you pony up the evidence. The burden in on you to prove my guilt, not on me to disprove your claims or prove my innocence.

But, since you have realised you can not, so 'now' you, supposedly, have no destination nor endpoint here.

No. You asked for this interrogation, uh, conversation, not me. It's your thread: I'm just posting in it. Your goal is to get me; mine is only to watch you try.

[Atla]

So, exactly, as I said and pointed out, you replied to it, not me.

Thank you for, again, highlighting this

So this reply was written neither by the 'I' nor 'age':

abuse of others, and especially to children, is what 'I' certainly do take 'issue' with
...
The abuse of children is NOT some 'silly little issue', at all. Even though you may think so "atla".

What I really do not care one iota about, at all, is the actual very tiny, insignificant and extremely little 'issues' that a lot of you adult human beings, like 'you' "atla", continually go on with and about.

So who wrote it? Is there now a third in there too that you call 'you'? Well at least you always have one or two friends with you.

Let's see if 'age'/'I'/'age-you' can be honest here.

[Iwannaplato]

Besides you, of course, others could clearly see, recognize, and know who that 'who' was in reference to, exactly.

LOL. You think I couldn't see what you 'meant'.

Which was not like your sentence was at all, which was plainly, traditionally, grammatically incorrect.

Um, your sentence was plainly, traditionally, incorrect. And if you think sentence fragments that seem to be questions for a while but then aren't really don't lead to confusion, it might be because you don't have enough direct contact with people in real life.

If you could not see and recognize which 'who' the 'who' was related to, then you might need to freshen up in your learning of how to see and follow context in posts. Maybe you are breaking down paragraphs and/or sentences too much, and thus not following the actual context and intended meaning of the whole. But, you do have a tendency to miss quite a lot anyway in my writings. Have you considered seeking help from others in how to guide you so that you do not miss as much as you do here?

As I've said, I get regular, daily feedback on my communication. Some human beings, at the time this was being written, liked to pretend they did not get triggered and defensive, when in fact they were. This was why the internet was the only way they could sustain contact with others. That they could not be seen, their tone of voice could not be heard, the tensions in their facial and neck muscles could not be seen, in this medium, and this allowed them to think they could hide what they could not, even there. The ego of the human being never ceases to surprise.

I think that's one of the things I said. But I guess it was merely an unintentional error on your part. I've seen you intentionally break the rules of grammar, for a purpose, so I thought this was an instance of that. But it sure was a sentence fragment/incomplete sentence.

Only if one failed to relate 'that sentence' with the direct 'preceding sentence'. Is this what you did?

No, it's a sentence fragment regardless of what the reader does to parse the meaning.

If no, then how could you have not correlated the two together?

Oh, I see you haven't read what I wrote about what I experienced very well.

So, what is 'it' that you are trying to or wanting to say or express here, exactly?

It's fine with me if you don't put in the effort to even manage a specific question about that. It's all find if you don't understand what I wrote. Given that when other people, according to you, do not understand what you wrote, and you nearly always blame them for that, I'll do the same here in relation to you.

Okay. So, how could 'it' have been an 'error', to you alone?

1) you have no way of knowing that. You usually interpret silence as supporting your claims.

If you did not miss 'it' previously, then why are you implying that you could not make sense of 'it', or that 'it' was an 'error'.

Now you are getting closer to a good question. Why would I do that "age"?

Let's see if your supposed knowledge of us humans beings is as complete and profound as you constantly imply and state.

[Age]

you, previously, wanted to disprove my claims and accusations about you

No. I haven't attempted, am not attempting, won't attempt, have no reason to attempt, to disprove anything.

Okay. So, you said what you did. Full stop.

You made claims about me.

Yes I did.

I asked that you pony up the evidence. The burden in on you to prove my guilt, not on me to disprove your claims or prove my innocence.

I claim that you said that you would shoot human beings if they tried to take what you say and claim is 'your stuff', like 'toothpicks' and what could be perceived as 'lesser than' toothpicks.

Which I also claim is absoltuely contradictory to what you say and claim are 'natural rights' that every one has, and which you doing the exact opposite of what you claim is a 'natural right' of every one makes you a "hypocrite", as well.

And, I, still, stand by this.

you are guilty of this, by what you have said and claimed in this forum.

But, since you have realised you can not, so 'now' you, supposedly, have no destination nor endpoint here.

No. You asked for this interrogation, uh, conversation, not me.

And, you agreed, and then told/suggested I start a new thread, which I did. But, you have decided to try to stall and delay 'this conversation', which you call and claim is 'an interrogation', which is totally understandable considering what the actual Truth is here.

It's your thread: I'm just posting in it. Your goal is to get me; mine is only to watch you try.

What more does anyone need to show to prove that you continue to contradict "your" own 'self' when you keep claiming that everyone has a 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, and property, and to no one else's life, liberty, nor property. Yet, you say and claim not that you just 'can', but that you actually 'will', take away another's life, liberty, and/or property, and use words as though you have some sort of 'right' to tell others what they can and cannot do.

Now, that when you do this that this is blatantly contradictory and hypocritical goes without saying, and as every one here can see this clearly this makes you 'guilty'. Except, of course, you cannot see this. And, this is just because you 'believe', absolutely, that you are 'not guilty' of contradicting "your" 'self' here.

Because you, still, 'believe', absolutely, that you, for example, have a 'right' to shoot human beings, dead or not, if they just try to 'take away' what you call and claim is 'your property'.

Now that 'your guilt' has been proved True, once again. Hopefully, you will not try again to say and claim that you did not say 'that'.