"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

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':

Do you know what you are even asking here?

Are you even aware of what you are even replying to, now?

After all it was you who replied to it, in the beginning.

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?

Obviously, 'I' wrote it. And, just as obvious is 'you' replied to it.

Is there now a third in there too that you call 'you'?

A 'third what', exactly?

Well at least you always have one or two friends with you.

Okay, and how many friends do you, supposedly, have with you?

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

This has already been shown.

But, obviously, some of you 'see' very differently, than others.

[Age]

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'.

Yet, here 'you' are, once again, 'trying to make' 'another issue' out of what turns out to be 'nothing' at all.

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

Um, your sentence was plainly, traditionally, incorrect.

Okay, yet, laughingly, you 'knew', exactly, what was 'meant'.

But, still, wanted to make some thing out of no thing.

If you wrote every sentence traditionally grammatically correct, then I would ask you to help me in regards to writing traditionally grammatically correct. Even in the cases where you 'knew', exactly, what I 'meant' but, still, wanted to point out my 'grammatical ineptitude'.

But, considering I find your writings maybe the second worst here, error wise, I suggest taking a 'look at' you, first, and what you do, before 'looking at' others, and what they do.

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.

Why do you here, once again, seem 'obsessed' 'with me', and 'with my direct contact with people outside of the internet'?

Maybe you do not have much contact with m/any people outside of internet forums at all, and so 'see this' in others.

Also, if you listen to "atla" it will inform you of how many people I 'have to have' contact with, outside of this forum, just 'to function', like in regards just to moving, eating, drinking, dressing, urinating, and defecating.

And, "atla" is always right 'about me'. That is; if you ask "atla" itself.

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.

Okay. But, why does someone of your 'self-stated caliber' even 'need' 'regular, daily feedback' on your communication skills, or lack of, anyway?

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.

Yes, this is very, very obvious sometimes.

This was why the internet was the only way they could sustain contact with others.

Why do you, really, 'believe' that there are some human beings, in the day that you wrote this, 'who' their one and 'only way' that they could 'sustain contact with others', was with the internet?

Or, is this just some thing, which you presumed was true, and have somehow related 'this' with those 'who' 'pretend that they do not get triggered and defensive, and then 'put 'the two conceptions' together', and then presented them, combined, as though there was some actual truth here?

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.

Is this why you are on the internet "iwannaplato"?

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.

Okay.

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.

if you say so. But, let 'us' not forget that you have previously not recognized you have made a claim about me not seeing or not replying to some thing, yet you had not realized that there was no possible way that I could read the actual thing you spoke of, previously as 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, if you do not want to or just cannot say and express here what 'it' is that you 'wanted to', then so be it.

Imagine if you took 'this attitude' every time you were about to respond to me.

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

1) you have no way of knowing that.

If this is what you believe is true, then this is perfectly fine, with me.

You usually interpret silence as supporting your claims.

No I do not.

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"?

Now, you went in the exact opposite direction of a 'good question'.

But, do you have a tendency to never want to answer and reply to 'the questions' I ask you, which if you did openly and honestly would incriminate you, or contradict and/or be inconsistent with a previous claim or assertion of yours.

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

Okay.

[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'.

Yet, here 'you' are, once again, 'trying to make' 'another issue' out of what turns out to be 'nothing' at all.

What a great summation of many of your accusatory and deflective posts. Thank you.

[henry quirk]

So, you said what you did.

And what exactly was that?

you are guilty of this

Evidence?

you have decided to try to stall and delay 'this conversation'

How so?

[Atla]

Do you know what you are even asking here?

Are you even aware of what you are even replying to, now?

After all it was you who replied to it, in the beginning.

Still waiting on you to show where I replied to a 'NOT some silly little issue'.

[henry quirk]

age,

I take it we're done here?

[Age]

age,

I take it we're done here?

Okay, if you say so.

But, that you said and claimed that you will shoot a human being if they try to take your toothpick, and even less than a toothpick, still stands. And, as I have been saying and pointing out here, this completely and utterly contradicts what else you have been saying and claiming here about every human being having a 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, and property.

[henry quirk]

Okay, if you say so.

I asked a question: I didn't make a statement.

I would prefer we continue the interrogation, uh, conversation, but it's your thread, your challenge, so it's your call.

[Age]

Okay, if you say so.

I asked a question: I didn't make a statement.

As can be clearly seen you did make a statement.

Then, at the end of your statement you added a question mark.

I would prefer we continue the interrogation, uh, conversation, but it's your thread, your challenge, so it's your call.

you said and claimed that you will shoot a human being if they try to take your toothpick, and even less than a toothpick. Obviously, this completely and utterly contradicts what else you have been saying and claiming here about every human being having a 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, and property.

Is there anything else to discuss here?

[Iwannaplato]

you said and claimed that you will shoot a human being if they try to take your toothpick, and even less than a toothpick. Obviously, this completely and utterly contradicts what else you have been saying and claiming here about every human being having a 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, and property.

Is there anything else to discuss here?

A suggestion: explain why you think it completely and utterly contradicts....etc. It may seem obvious to you, but it will move dialogue along if you explain rather than simply declare. This gives the other person, here henry quirk, more to work with in his response. It makes your assertion clear from the get go. He doesn't have to ask.

If he has already given his reasons for his position, he may well give the same reasons for his position. But if he sees your objection, he can then react more specifically to that.

This is not just about speed but also clarity. It minimizes repetition. Further, if for example henry quirks responses elicit more assertions on your part or questions, it will end up that henry is producing most of the substance, without necessarily knowing exactly what your point is.

That can and, it seems to me, often does have two consequences: 1) one person ends up doing all of the justifying and explaining and so it is as if only one person needs to, and 2) much of this is irrelevant or tangential. What is essential might well have been taken care of if you justified and explained your sense that it must be a contradiction.

[Age]

you said and claimed that you will shoot a human being if they try to take your toothpick, and even less than a toothpick. Obviously, this completely and utterly contradicts what else you have been saying and claiming here about every human being having a 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, and property.

Is there anything else to discuss here?

A suggestion: explain why you think it completely and utterly contradicts....etc. It may seem obvious to you, but it will move dialogue along if you explain rather than simply declare.

Oh, I thought it was blatantly obvious why taking another's life, liberty, or property contradicted also claiming that another had a 'miral claim' and 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, or property.

As I have already explained many times already.

Do you find it contradictory, or not contradictory, to:

1. Tell another human being what to do or what to not do, with 'their own life' while also claiming that every one has a 'natural right' to 'their own life'?

And,

2. To take another's life, liberty, or property while also claiming that everyone has a 'natural right' to 'their own life'?

This gives the other person, here henry quirk, more to work with in his response. It makes your assertion clear from the get go. He doesn't have to ask.

I have already informed "henry quirk, numerous times, why it is being contradictory here. Why do you presume I had not?

If he has already given his reasons for his position, he may well give the same reasons for his position. But if he sees your objection, he can then react more specifically to that.

But, "Henry quirk" does not want to 'see' 'the reasons' for my position/the Truth here. And, this is just because adult human beings do not like to be seen as "hypocrites", nor being 'contradictory' in their views and claims

This is not just about speed but also clarity. It minimizes repetition.

But, 'the repetition' you posters here do, while trying to deflect away from the irrefutable Truths I like to point out and show here, is what I want others to 'see' and 'observe' you adult human beings did, back in the Colden days' when this was being written.

Further, if for example henry quirks responses elicit more assertions on your part or questions, it will end up that henry is producing most of the substance, without necessarily knowing exactly what your point is.

If this is what you are 'seeing', or 'believing' here, then okay.

That can and, it seems to me, often does have two consequences: 1) one person ends up doing all of the justifying and explaining and so it is as if only one person needs to, and 2) much of this is irrelevant or tangential. What is essential might well have been taken care of if you justified and explained your sense that it must be a contradiction.

I had already. you, once again, must of missed that also.

Are you aware that if you miss things, then this, in and of itself, does not mean that they did not already happen, and occur?

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh, I thought it was blatantly obvious why taking another's life, liberty, or property contradicted also claiming that another had a 'miral claim' and 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, or property.

Hilarious that people thought this, in the days when this was written.

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh, I thought it was blatantly obvious why taking another's life, liberty, or property contradicted also claiming that another had a 'miral claim' and 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, or property.

Hilariuos that people thought this, in the days when this was written.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, I thought it was blatantly obvious why taking another's life, liberty, or property contradicted also claiming that another had a 'miral claim' and 'natural right' to their own life, liberty, or property.

Yes, I thought so. Which is why I wrote...

It may seem obvious to you

I think it's obvious that it is not obvious to henry quirk that this is the case. So, explaining why might be helpful for him to see this, it also gives and argument for him to respond to. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think this can advance the dialogue and actually make it very clear to both parties - where they disagree in specifics not just on the whole point, where they might agree in part and where to move forward - for example what needs to be justified or explained in the next steps.

As I have already explained many times already.

If you explained why before, then you did what I suggested already. In other words if you justified why those were contradictory, instead of merely pointing out/asserting, then you already did what I suggested.

This gives the other person, here henry quirk, more to work with in his response. It makes your assertion clear from the get go. He doesn't have to ask.

I have already informed "henry quirk, numerous times, why it is being contradictory here. Why do you presume I had not?

Could you link me to that post and will you link me to it in your response to me next?

If he has already given his reasons for his position, he may well give the same reasons for his position. But if he sees your objection, he can then react more specifically to that.

But, "Henry quirk" does not want to 'see' 'the reasons' for my position/the Truth here. And, this is just because adult human beings do not like to be seen as "hypocrites", nor being 'contradictory' in their views and claims

But you did it anyway, given what you wrote above, earlier in the thread, despite this.

This is not just about speed but also clarity. It minimizes repetition.

But, 'the repetition' you posters here do, while trying to deflect away from the irrefutable Truths I like to point out and show here, is what I want others to 'see' and 'observe' you adult human beings did, back in the Colden days' when this was being written.

OK, well, if your goal is produce repetition, then I'd agree that this approach is more likely to be effective.

Are you aware that if you miss things, then this, in and of itself, does not mean that they did not already happen, and occur?

I have many times mentioned my fallibility. Have you not noticed when I have done this?

[henry quirk]

you said and claimed...

Is there anything else to discuss here?

Yes. What exactly did I say and claim? Your interpretations of what I said and claimed don't count.