"age" verses "quirk"

[Age]

To me that is not 'empathy' at all.

What is empathy to you?

Coming to, actually, 'understand' 'the other'.

See, what is abuse, to you, is not, to another. What you call 'being abused' another might 'love', And, vice versa, what you 'love' another might call 'abuse'. So, just 'Imagining what it's like to be in the other guy's shoes', could provide an absolutely Wrong and False perception, and thus which could only cause more abuse, which could then cause more harm and damage as well.

Also, if you only want to 'imagine what it is like to be in the other guy's shoes', only, then this shows, and proves, how little empathy you have actually obtained.

But one does not have to be 'selling' some thing to want to 'persuade' another of some thing.

Not lookin' to persuade either.

Okay, then great.

And, what would 'that warning' be, exactly?

Some folks won't go the abattoir without a fight.

I have absolutely no idea nor clue what this is supposed to mean nor refer to. That is, if it was supposed to mean or refer to some thing.

[Age]

So, you imagine that there are other human beings, like you, who believe that it is easy to recognize and respect another's life when they, like you, are shooting at human beings, right?

Yes.

Are you now saying that there were more than one who has told you such a thing?

Yes.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that it was the original post?

That was the first of mine to mention toothpicks.

Oh, you were talking about and referring to 'toothpicks' only.

See, I thought when you said and wrote, 'this is the original post that triggered you five years ago', I thought you meant and were referring to 'what', exactly, 'triggered me'.

I did not realize that you were only talking about and referring to 'toothpicks' solely, and only. And, this is 'my fault', solely and absolutely, for not clarifying and confirming 'with you' that you were only referring to 'toothpicks' alone.

See, just here was another prime example of just how simply, quickly, and easily things can get lost and confused in conversations when 'clarification' is not sought out and obtained first.

"henry quirk" was saying, ' 'it' was ', and, I was saying, ' 'it' was not '. Which might appear that 'we' both could not be correct, but, in fact, 'we' both were. 'We' were both just thinking of completely different things when 'we' were using the 'it' word, here.

And, it was, and will be, discovered that it was just this lack of confirming, clarification, and verifying, which led to so much of the bickering, arguing, fighting, and warring among human beings, up to the days when this was being written.

You've been houndin' me for five years aboit my willingness to shoot someone over toothpicks. 1 + 1 = 2.

Why do you feel so-called 'hounded'?

I am just wanting to show, and prove, how some people, back when this was being written, would say and claim things like, 'people have an absolute claim, and/or natural right, to their 'own life', but, absolutely contradictory, still, believe, absolutely, that they can take away 'another's own life' over just things like 'toothpicks', and/or 'moldy pieces of bread'.

See, there will be some, many years from when this is being written, who would love 'to know' how humans used to think, and believe, and what, exactly, in their thoughts and beliefs led them to abuse and kill so many, and as often as they did.

your words here "henry quirk" are providing absolutely 'great insights' into this.

See, even when you posters here 'know', instinctively and/or internally, what is actually True and Right, in Life, you are, still, able to completely override what is good, True, and Right, in Life, with just your learned assumptions, and beliefs.

And, how do you know the thoughts I have had, and when I had them?

I only know the verifiable sequence of posts.

And, only in regards to the 'toothpick' word here, right?

So, what 'we' have here is another one who will just not clarify, exactly and clearly.

No. What we have is you bein' unwilling to scroll up.

What 'we' actually had was another one who instead of just be open, honest, direct, and clear, wanted 'you readers' here to go and 'find' some thing, which, supposedly, exists somewhere.

Also, any one could so-call 'scroll up' and not find, and 'see', what is being claimed exists, somewhere.

And, if one was to say, 'I could not find what you are alluding to, and claim exists, then it would be 'that one's, supposed, fault'. Even if the 'claimed thing', really, did not even exist.

Which is 'quite convenient' for 'the one' who just did not be clear and concise, from the outset, and who did not actually back up and support 'their claim'.

Which obviously leads some to wonder why?

Yeah, why can't you scroll up?

Well if you just 'scrolled up', "yourself" "henry quirk", then you could and would see what I am actually pointing out, and describing, here.

But, why does it, supposedly, not matter?

Again: life s risky for sinners and saints, both (and for all those in-between).

But, once again, there are no so-called "sinners'" and "saints".

Some of these posters really did have the most shallowest and closed view and perspectives of things.

Now, I said and wrote here, 'Do you realise that after you shoot another, over a toothpick, ...',

But now you are saying, 'it does not matter'.

Again, 'this one' is 'trying to deflect'.

And again, because it knows the consequences if it was to be open and honest here.

If an "aggressor" and "monster" such as "yourself" "henry quirk" had just recognized and respected other human beings, and so did not shoot at and/or take another's own life, which they had an absolute claim, and natural right, to, then others would not now be wanting you dead, nor be shooting at you, to save society from 'those' exactly like you.

If the aggressor left me be, then I wouldn't have to defend myself against him.

LOL 'This one', still, believes, absolutely, that shooting at human beings for 'trying to' 'make off' with a 'toothpick', of all things, is so-called 'defending one's self'.

And, what 'we' also have here now is a prime example of one not taking absolutely any responsibility at all for its 'own misbehaving/Wrong doing', and is doing this by 'trying to' 'blame' another for what it, "itself", has done.

'This one' is, now, sounding, exactly, like "adam" and absolutely every "male" adult, in the days when this is being written, that is; blaming someone else for their own Wrong doing.

you have gone from 'bad' to 'worse' here "henry quirk".

See, as soon as 'other's' want to 'defend themselves', 'from you', you want to whine, and cry, or beg for mercy, by pleading, 'If it was not for 'another', then I would not have done what I did'.

Which is what just about every one of your 'fellow' human beings, who are getting sentenced to incarceration, get 'accused' of doing, also.

So, you are proving to be 'no better' or the 'exact same' as all of them, as well.

Why, have you, really, forgotten?

I haven't stolen anything. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Do you actually believe that you have not stolen any thing?

[henry quirk]

It is about context, right?

By Crom, I think you've got it!

Why can the child, supposedly, not get away?

He's locked in a room. She's chained up in an attic. Endless possibilities.

What happens if the child only has a blunted pencil, when as you say and claim only a sharpened pencil is the 'only way' the child could get away?

It was just an example of what the kid might have on hand. It could be scissors, chopsticks, her thumb, a rusty nail, etc.

Why does the "guy" have to be punching and tearing clothes?

Becuz his victim said no or showed no interest in him, so he decided to take what she would not give him.

So, to "henry quirk", all children, old, young, infants, and babies 'should' 'defend themselves', right?

Any person has a right to defend him- or her-self, and I think he or she should, yes.

Which includes if some one just 'tries to' 'make off' with a toothpick, or with a moldy piece of bread, then they 'should' "defend themselves", and 'their property', and shoot at those other human beings, correct?

Given the proper context: yes.

[henry quirk]

Coming to, actually, 'understand' 'the other'.

That's what imagining what it's like to be in the other guy's shoes means.

See, what is abuse, to you, is not, to another. What you call 'being abused' another might 'love'

I find it hard to imagine anyone believes murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud are acts of love or are not abuses.

I have absolutely no idea nor clue what this is supposed to mean nor refer to.

I know you don't. You never will. Not even when you're in the chute and can hear, comin' from just up ahead in the nondescript building you're being bustled off to, the cries of the other sheep as their throats are cut.

You can't.

[henry quirk]

Oh, you were talking about and referring to 'toothpicks' only.

See, I thought when you said and wrote, 'this is the original post that triggered you five years ago', I thought you meant and were referring to 'what', exactly, 'triggered me'.

I did not realize that you were only talking about and referring to 'toothpicks' solely, and only. And, this is 'my fault', solely and absolutely, for not clarifying and confirming 'with you' that you were only referring to 'toothpicks' alone.

See, just here was another prime example of just how simply, quickly, and easily things can get lost and confused in conversations when 'clarification' is not sought out and obtained first.

"henry quirk" was saying, ' 'it' was ', and, I was saying, ' 'it' was not '. Which might appear that 'we' both could not be correct, but, in fact, 'we' both were. 'We' were both just thinking of completely different things when 'we' were using the 'it' word, here.

And, it was, and will be, discovered that it was just this lack of confirming, clarification, and verifying, which led to so much of the bickering, arguing, fighting, and warring among human beings, up to the days when this was being written.

And the award for most convoluted and unconvincing mea culpa goes to...

Why do you feel so-called 'hounded'?

It's an expression, age: you're not supposed to take it literally.

Also, any one could so-call 'scroll up' and not find, and 'see', what is being claimed exists, somewhere.

Yes. So, do that.

And, if one was to say, 'I could not find what you are alluding to, and claim exists, then it would be 'that one's, supposed, fault'.

Yes.

if you just 'scrolled up', "yourself" "henry quirk", then you could and would see what I am actually pointing out, and describing, here.

I have. I do. I've re-read this thread several times. Very entetaining.

But, once again, there are no so-called "sinners'" and "saints".

Yeah, there are.

LOL 'This one', still, believes, absolutely, that shooting at human beings for 'trying to' 'make off' with a 'toothpick', of all things, is so-called 'defending one's self'.

HA! This one still believes, a person has no right to defend his life, liberty, and property.

Do you actually believe that you have not stolen any thing?

I know, as fact, I haven't. If you have evidence to the contrary: please, post it.

[Age]

Coming to, actually, 'understand' 'the other'.

That's what imagining what it's like to be in the other guy's shoes means.

They are two different things.

Now, if you would like to 'look into' this further, and have a discussion, then great.

But, if you just want to believe what you do here, only, then okay.

See, what is abuse, to you, is not, to another. What you call 'being abused' another might 'love'

I find it hard to imagine anyone believes murder, rape, slavery, theft, fraud are acts of love or are not abuses.

My apologies. I meant to write the 'necessary' word after the 'not' word.

Okay. And, also, what you 'find hard to imagine' is a great example of why some things just take so, so much longer to be uncovered, or learned, and understood.

But, if you find some thing 'hard to imagine', then I do not want to do any thing, which you 'find hard' here.

I have absolutely no idea nor clue what this is supposed to mean nor refer to.

I know you don't. You never will. Not even when you're in the chute and can hear, comin' from just up ahead in the nondescript building you're being bustled off to, the cries of the other sheep as their throats are cut.

You can't.

Okay. But, I still have, absolutely, no idea nor clue at all what you are talking about here.

Would you like to elaborate here?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

Oh, you were talking about and referring to 'toothpicks' only.

See, I thought when you said and wrote, 'this is the original post that triggered you five years ago', I thought you meant and were referring to 'what', exactly, 'triggered me'.

I did not realize that you were only talking about and referring to 'toothpicks' solely, and only. And, this is 'my fault', solely and absolutely, for not clarifying and confirming 'with you' that you were only referring to 'toothpicks' alone.

See, just here was another prime example of just how simply, quickly, and easily things can get lost and confused in conversations when 'clarification' is not sought out and obtained first.

"henry quirk" was saying, ' 'it' was ', and, I was saying, ' 'it' was not '. Which might appear that 'we' both could not be correct, but, in fact, 'we' both were. 'We' were both just thinking of completely different things when 'we' were using the 'it' word, here.

And, it was, and will be, discovered that it was just this lack of confirming, clarification, and verifying, which led to so much of the bickering, arguing, fighting, and warring among human beings, up to the days when this was being written.

And the award for most convoluted and unconvincing mea culpa goes to...

Why do you feel so-called 'hounded'?

It's an expression, age: you're not supposed to take it literally.

So, why in a philosophy forum, of all places, where 'truth', itself, has far more importance than anywhere else, and where the only thing 'we' have, to work with, are 'words alone', why would you write some thing that you do not, literally, even mean?

Also, any one could so-call 'scroll up' and not find, and 'see', what is being claimed exists, somewhere.

Yes. So, do that.

In case you are unaware I did say, 'not find'.

And, if one was to say, 'I could not find what you are alluding to, and claim exists, then it would be 'that one's, supposed, fault'.

Yes.

Now here is a prime example of why 'the world' was the way it was, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

if you just 'scrolled up', "yourself" "henry quirk", then you could and would see what I am actually pointing out, and describing, here.

I have. I do. I've re-read this thread several times. Very entetaining.

So, what am I, actually, pointing out, and describing, here "henry quirk"?

But, once again, there are no so-called "sinners'" and "saints".

Yeah, there are.

So, who are "sinners" and who are "saints", to you, exactly?

And, are 'you' a "sinner" or a "saint", to you?

LOL 'This one', still, believes, absolutely, that shooting at human beings for 'trying to' 'make off' with a 'toothpick', of all things, is so-called 'defending one's self'.

HA! This one still believes, a person has no right to defend his life, liberty, and property.

LOL But this is the very last thing that I have said, or claimed, here. And, for two reasons.

So, you have arrived at another absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect conclusion.

Do you actually believe that you have not stolen any thing?

I know, as fact, I haven't. If you have evidence to the contrary: please, post it.

So, "henry quirk" has lived to the age that it is 'now', when this is written, and, supposedly, 'knows' that it has not stolen absolutely any thing in all of 'that time'.

[Iwannaplato]

So, why in a philosophy forum, of all places, where 'truth', itself, has far more importance than anywhere else, and where the only thing 'we' have, to work with, are 'words alone', why would you write some thing that you do not, literally, even mean?

Because using metaphorical language allows the communication of a wider variety of meaning. Further, there is no avoiding metaphorical language. Is there a reason why we should restrict our language use because you 1) don't understand openly metaphorical or idiomatic English and 2) don't understand how much of language is metaphorical, but is dead metaphors so we think of it as literal?

Why are your limitations our problem?

And he responded politely to let you know. You clearly have not had the slightest curiosity about this since I point this all out earlier. So, you get cranky when other people write in ways that your limitations make hard to parse.

Has no one in your in person life not informed you that inablity to work with metaphors and irony go hand in hand with some of your traits?

After your whole tirade about all that we have is words on a screen you then go on to use the metaphor....

So, what am I, actually, pointing out, and describing, here "henry quirk"?

Or were you literally pointing and expecting him to see where you were pointing?

And let's not get stuck thinking that is the limits of metaphor use in nearly all language. But if you're are curious it is easy to google your way to more information about dead metaphors in language and even the schemas framing the way we think about all sorts of thinks embedded in metaphors so common we don't notice them.

Since, as you point out, this is a philosophy forum, you might want to look at the works of
George Lakoff
Mark Johnson
Zoltán Kövecses
Gilles Fauconnier
Mark Turner

Their works can help break the binary illusion you have around metaphrorical and literal language. And it's not like I think you should believe them, because they tell us. It's that they have spent time organizing the information, with a myriad of examples of what most people don't realize is metaphorical.

For someone who claims this...

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

it is amazing how you don't know much about language which is intimately involved in how we think, for example. Even more amazing is the lack of insight into your own language use and thus thinking.

[henry quirk]

They are two different things.

I disagree.

Now, if you would like to 'look into' this further, and have a discussion, then great.

I'll pass, thanks.

Okay. But, I still have, absolutely, no idea nor clue at all what you are talking about here.

I know.

Would you like to elaborate here?

No.

If no, then why not?

There's no point.

[henry quirk]

So, why in a philosophy forum, of all places, where 'truth', itself, has far more importance than anywhere else, and where the only thing 'we' have, to work with, are 'words alone', why would you write some thing that you do not, literally, even mean?

The language is rich; it has flavors, nuances. I am not a machine. I express myself as boldly or subtly as I like.

There: three reasons why I sometimes write what I don't literally mean.

Do you read poetry, age?

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;

“But I like it
“Because it is bitter,
“And because it is my heart.”

You think Crane means the creature is literally eating his own heart?

I did say, 'not find'.

That's an odd way to say did not look, but, okay.

So, what am I, actually, pointing out, and describing, here "henry quirk"?

Nuthin'. I don't believe you scrolled up.

And, are 'you' a "sinner" or a "saint", to you?

Let's just say: I'm not as bad as you think or as good as I'd like.

for two reasons.

Which are?

So, "henry quirk" has lived to the age that it is 'now', when this is written, and, supposedly, 'knows' that it has not stolen absolutely any thing in all of 'that time'.

Yes. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?

[Age]

So, why in a philosophy forum, of all places, where 'truth', itself, has far more importance than anywhere else, and where the only thing 'we' have, to work with, are 'words alone', why would you write some thing that you do not, literally, even mean?

Because using metaphorical language allows the communication of a wider variety of meaning.

But why not just say and write what is actually meant only.

And, will you provide example/s of wanting to say and write a so-called 'wider variety of meaning' instead of just saying and writing what you 'actually mean'?

If no, then why not?

Further, there is no avoiding metaphorical language.

Really?

Was what you just said and wrote here another example of the, supposed, 'there is no avoiding metaphorical language'?

Is there a reason why we should restrict our language use because you 1) don't understand openly metaphorical or idiomatic English

1. Why do you presume that I do not understand openly metaphorical or idiomatic english?

2. I never said nor suggested that any one 'restricts' our nor their language.

and 2) don't understand how much of language is metaphorical, but is dead metaphors so we think of it as literal?

1. Why do you presume that I do not understand how much of language is metaphorical?

2. I never said nor suggested that any one 'restricts' our nor their language.

Why are your limitations our problem?

you, obviously, still do not yet know what the 'problem' word means and refers to, exactly, to me.

And he responded politely to let you know.

Who cares about 'politeness' in a philosophy forum. Truth overrides every thing here, including politeness.

For example all of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, are abusing children, but if 'politeness' or 'being polite' is a necessity, then best I do not point out and prove the Truth and the fact that all of you adult human beings are abusing children, right?

Also, who cares if the one who admits that it would shoot a human being for just 'trying to' 'make off' with a toothpick is responding so-called 'politely' or not in a philosophy forum of all places.

I find the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth far, far more important that some Truly unnecessary 'polite way of speaking/writing'.

Where does 'your thinking' come from, exactly? Some 'olden day era' where the monetary rich folk are taught how to 'act' in front of others?

Once more, 'we' are in a philosophy forum. So, expect to get your claims and assertions questioned, and challenged. Therefore, I suggest speaking and writing, literally, the Truth only, and not some metaphorical language, instead.

Again, how simple and easy is this?

You clearly have not had the slightest curiosity about this since I point this all out earlier.

Once again, this speaks and writes 'in a way' that only it knows what is being talked about.

I have pointed this out to you previously, but obviously you have not taken this 'on board', not considered it and improved your communicating ways.

So, you get cranky when other people write in ways that your limitations make hard to parse.

Why do you, continually, try to assume you know what, exactly, is going on with 'the other'?

And, why do you, continually, do this when it is, continually, pointed out to you that you are absolutely Wrong, and Incorrect?

How many times does some thing need to be pointed out to you before you consider it, comprehend it, understand it, and so change doing it?

Has no one in your in person life not informed you that inablity to work with metaphors and irony go hand in hand with some of your traits?

But, once again, what you have imagined in regards to what I can do or cannot do here has on just about every occasion been absolutely False and Wrong, and if not, then partly False and Wrong.

And, once again, your assumption here 'about me' is absolutely False and Wrong. So, once more, asking a question like this one here is absolutely moot.

After all, for all you know "iwannaplato" I could be here 'acting' in 'a way' that is the complete opposite of who and what 'I' Truly am.

Have you never ever even just 'considered' this?

And, once more, have you never ever even just 'considered' to seek out and obtain actual clarity here, before you start making up absolutely any assumptions at all?

In fact, has no one in your 'personal life' not informed you that your inability to seek out and obtain actual clarification before you make Truly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect assumptions go 'together' with some of your traits?

After your whole tirade about all that we have is words on a screen you then go on to use the metaphor....

So, what am I, actually, pointing out, and describing, here "henry quirk"?

Or were you literally pointing and expecting him to see where you were pointing?

So, did I use a 'metaphor', or 'not'?

And, why do you think or believe that one could not 'point out' some thing with words, alone?

And let's not get stuck thinking that is the limits of metaphor use in nearly all language. But if you're are curious it is easy to google your way to more information about dead metaphors in language and even the schemas framing the way we think about all sorts of thinks embedded in metaphors so common we don't notice them.

So, once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of just how much, and how often, these adult human beings, back when this was being written, would try to over complicated what is essentially, absolutely, simple and easy.

Instead of just 'changing' and just speaking and writing the Truth only here, 'this one', laughingly, wants me to go and 'look at' just how much these people would actually try to over complicate what is Truly not.

Since, as you point out, this is a philosophy forum, you might want to look at the works of
George Lakoff
Mark Johnson
Zoltán Kövecses
Gilles Fauconnier
Mark Turner

Once again, this one has completely and utterly missed, misinterpreted, misconstrued, misunderstood, and/or mistaken the 'actual point'.

But, this was a very common habit of this one, and others, because they were never sure if 'the other' was speaking metaphorically, or not.

Their works can help break the binary illusion you have around metaphrorical and literal language. And it's not like I think you should believe them, because they tell us. It's that they have spent time organizing the information, with a myriad of examples of what most people don't realize is metaphorical.

So, they have spoken, and written, with a myriad of examples, about a thing that, supposedly, most people do not realize is 'metaphorical', when 'the thing', 'metaphorical language', is not even a necessary part of Life, and living.

Which is speaking about and writing a lot of words about some thing Truly unimportant here.

For someone who claims this...

And, this is because I know, exactly, who, and what, you all are, and how, and why, you all think, and do, what you all think, and do.

it is amazing how you don't know much about language which is intimately involved in how we think, for example.

So, because you are, supposedly, a "teacher of the english language" only, and thus should know more about the "english language" than most others here, just continually talking about the "english language" and what is involved in that is not really showing a sign that you are a very "worldly person", at all, which is what is far more important and far more necessary in a 'philosophy forum'. Well to some people anyway.

Do the people in your 'personal life' inform you of how fixated you are the "english language", itself, only?

And, because you may have to read some things, by some authors, for your work and job, is not really a motivating reason for others wanting to read the same texts.

Even more amazing is the lack of insight into your own language use and thus thinking.

Okay.

If this is what you want to believe is true, then please keep on doing this.

But, could your own assumptions here, which led up to your beliefs here, now, have been False or Wrong from the outset?

Or, is this not even a possibility in your own views of things here?

[Age]

They are two different things.

I disagree.

Okay. And, I can, unintelligibly, also just say, 'I disagree'. But, where does this leave what the actual Truth is, exactly?

Can you prove, or at least back up and support in some way, what your view of things is here?

Now, if you would like to 'look into' this further, and have a discussion, then great.

I'll pass, thanks.

I though you would, especially considering what your view is here.

Okay. But, I still have, absolutely, no idea nor clue at all what you are talking about here.

I know.

Would you like to elaborate here?

No.

If no, then why not?

There's no point.

Why is there, supposedly, 'no point', to you?

And, if there is 'no point', then why even respond and say things, from the outset, which you claim you, supposedly, already knew that others would not have a clue what you are talking about and that there was 'no point' in even elaborating on?

[Age]

So, why in a philosophy forum, of all places, where 'truth', itself, has far more importance than anywhere else, and where the only thing 'we' have, to work with, are 'words alone', why would you write some thing that you do not, literally, even mean?

The language is rich; it has flavors, nuances. I am not a machine. I express myself as boldly or subtly as I like.

And, you are absolutely free to do so. But why?

What is 'it', exactly, that you spend time talking about, and thus want to get across here, to others?

There: three reasons why I sometimes write what I don't literally mean.

Do you read poetry, age?

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;

“But I like it
“Because it is bitter,
“And because it is my heart.”

You think Crane means the creature is literally eating his own heart?

I did say, 'not find'.

That's an odd way to say did not look, but, okay.

Why are you so confused here?

So, what am I, actually, pointing out, and describing, here "henry quirk"?

Nuthin'. I don't believe you scrolled up.

See how often these ones would make claims, but when challenged and/or questioned over 'their claims' they fail, absolutely, in backing up and supporting 'the claim'.

And, are 'you' a "sinner" or a "saint", to you?

Let's just say: I'm not as bad as you think or as good as I'd like.

So, once again, what can be seen here is 'this one' does not clarify, clearly, concisely, nor Accurately and Correctly.

for two reasons.

Which are?

So, "henry quirk" has lived to the age that it is 'now', when this is written, and, supposedly, 'knows' that it has not stolen absolutely any thing in all of 'that time'.

Yes. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?

Yes.

Can you, really, not see where you have stolen things?

[henry quirk]

where does this leave what the actual Truth is, exactly?

Hell if I know.

Can you prove, or at least back up and support in some way, what your view of things is here?

Not to your satisfaction, no.

Why is there, supposedly, 'no point', to you?

You're askin' me to describe red to a person who's been blind from birth. I'm simply not capable of doin' that.

And, if there is 'no point', then why even respond and say things, from the outset, which you claim you, supposedly, already knew that others would not have a clue what you are talking about and that there was 'no point' in even elaborating on?

Yeah, that there is blue, age.

[henry quirk]

But why?

Why not?

What is 'it', exactly, that you spend time talking about, and thus want to get across here, to others?

In this thread? Hell if I know. This is your interrogation: I'm just the subject of it.

In the forum (Warning! Incomprehensibility Ahead!): To insist I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

Why are you so confused here?

Am I?

Yes.

Then, please, show it, offer it, cite it.