"atheist" equals "theist"

[Iwannaplato]

I never said that it was not.

I just asked why would you even want to begin to assume, what you 'would'.

Why would I assume something that is true? It's called knowing.

Okay, and once again you appear to have absolutely no interest nor curiosity in wanting to gain clarity, learn, nor understand here, as well

Because I am dealing with someone who chooses yet again, not to saying anything interesting, but seems incredulous I would mention something true. When this is pointed out, that it was true, this person opts not to share something they think is interesting and goes on playing games. This same person (you if you are confused here) hasn't managed, over a period of months to produce anything particularly interesting, in conversation with me and others. This person has managed to deny that it does precisely what it claims others do and which it is critical of those others for doing. This person has presented both ideas and processes that it seems to think are profound which are not. Nor are they particularly unique. And that includes interactions you've had with generous, patient people like Harbal. Even when kind people like him, who you've now summed up negatively, adjust to your desires in the communication, nothing unique or profound ends up being produced by you.

There is a kind of narcissism in your questions in context. Life presents us many options for exploration/investigation and having dynamic relations with something. We are always choosing something over other things, instead of other things. You assume that when someone does not end up curious about you, that they have a problem, perhaps going into one of your statements about human beings at the time this is being written and your judgments of those humans. Actually, you've done little of interest in terms of content. Further you've told us that you are not necessarily communicating here for us. If you aren't communicating here with us as the audience, you might want to consider that that is palpable. That on some level people pick that up and respond to your lack of real interest in communicating with us, with a similar disinterest in you. If you are here with us an as audiance, what an idiotic thing to say: that we are not necessarily the audience for your communication here. There are a lot of instances where your communication is unnecessarily cryptic (evasive) or simply stupid to warrent intelligent preference to be curious about other people and and other things/processes.

An early version of this idiocy....

My TARGETED AUDIENCE IS a VERY SPECIFIC AUDIENCE. Which does NOT necessarily exist IN the days when this is being written.

An entity that communicates like this has a serious problem and while that in and of itself can lead to a little curiosity - how did this entity get like this and why is it so clueless about itself? - that it might have some useful knowledge is precisely counterindicated buy such utterances. I know you can introspect and reflect enough to figure out why. At least, so far you either lack the willingness to try or the ability to actually reflect well over this. And you seem to want to make others responsible for holding your hand through this, even though in the process you will dump judgments on anyone who tried. Judgments starting with 'This one....' or even referring to others as 'it'. I wonder if you even know your historical predecessors. Others to, even if they avoid your without consciously connecting your toxic behavior to the toxic behavior of past figures.

Of course, I am not particularly curious about what a person like this, who is not ever quite ready to say anything of much interest, and who is always trying to get others to say things so he can peck at them in a condescending way, might have to say.

Why do you assume and believe that I was saying some thing was incorrect, and not factual, there, in what you wrote?

What you fail to understand is that it is the most charitable thing to assume. Sometimes I give entities the benefit of the doubt This has on rare occasion led to something good. But with you...nah.

[Age]

I am not sure how that fits in, at all, with the context that I was talking about and referring to, here.

But then you do have a very strong and common tendency of completely missing, and/or misunderstanding, what I am actually saying, and meaning, here

Once more I will suggest that you seek out and obtain actual clarity before you even begin to assume things, here

Hello.

Hello.

I asked you if you thought those two were selfish and greedy. You answered Yes.

Yes, Correct.

Here's the original, moronic, reason you decided they were selfish and greedy...

As can be clearly seen here, once more, these posters, back then, were, literally, so blindingly selfish and greedy that they actually believed words like 'eternal damnation' were about them, personally.

But this is not even 'a' reason, let alone any other type of reason.

But to be clear, I did ask a clarifying questions, which you answered in the affirmative.

Yes, again, Correct.

The conclusion is not justified by your 'reasoning', but beyond that the conclusion is false and does not fit my experience.

But I had not, yet, provided 'the reason'.

Why did you believe that the above was 'my reasoning', here?

Once again you do not seem very capable at all of following, and comprehending and understanding me and 'my words' here.

Okay. But, what is obvious is that some completely miss context, itself.

Oh, I saw the context, which was part of a poor batch of 'reasoning'. I focused on the conclusion, which was false.

But you appear to not have grasped the context, at all really.

Now, if you believe that you 'saw' 'the context' and understood it, then what is 'the context', to you, exactly?

So, please demonstrate that Harbal is what you accused him of being.

The human beings known as "harbal" here, in this forum, is as greedy and selfish as all of you adult human beings are, and were, back in the days when this was being written, in that all of you adult human beings will do things, for your own, and for a select few, benefit which causes and creates the detriment of and for others/things.

1) you don't understand what greedy means to most people.

While you believe that 'this' is true, then 'this' will remain true, to you. Even if 'it' is not.

If you want to communicate well, you'll find out what other people mean by it.

But, it is you who does not, yet, know what is meant by 'it', exactly.

Of course, not doing that gives you a chance to chastize people for assuming you meant what is usually meant by that word.

But, what is meant by 'that word' is not necessarily what is meant by 'that word' to other people. As you have proved absolutely True, for me, here

I suppose, you may not want to lose the opportunity to chastize people.

And, I suppose you may want to continue to believe that this is true, correct?

2) Again confirming that you have broad general negative judgments of human beings at this time, which you have denied a number of times. Hypocrite.

Again, why do you 'see', and presume things, here, like negativity here for example, which are not here, nor there, at all?

'The answer', by the way, I have already informed you of, and many times over I will add.

3) Doing things for ourselves and the people we have access to and have developed relationships with is not selfish,

If this is what you believe is true here, then, you are not doing absolutely any thing Wrong here, and/or you will just keep doing what you are and have been, correct?

it makes sense, because we know those people best.

But all of you people are, fundamentally and essentially, made up of the exact same things. So, knowing one of you is knowing all of you, people, the same, as well.

Also, knowing how all of you human beings work, exactly, and fully, and knowing why all of you do do what you fully, as well, is knowing each of you, so-called, 'best', or in other words, 'equally'.

Or are you out there combing the hair of people you don't know well? Idiot.

you seem to be getting more upset or more frustrated, and more angry at me, as we move along here.

By the way, to me, 'people' do not have hair, but then you would already know this if you had been 'reading', and 'listening', here.

You are also looking at it in a very negative uncharitable ways, as is your habit.

Once again, why do you presume and believe this here?

Never once within this whole forum have I ever 'looked at' any thing here in any so-called 'negative uncharitable way', let alone in 'a very negative uncharitable ways'.

Why do you continue to presume I am?

And again, 'the answer' is very simple and easy to arrive at, understand, and know.

If we treat the people we come in contact with well, in general, this has effects that move outward, because they are then in a better postion to help the ones they know.

But, knowing all of you, equally, is being in the best position to help all of you, and not just some of you.

Also, treating only some 'well' is a huge reason why the adult human being created 'world', in the days when this was being written, was so very, very 'unwell'.

But you do believe that what you do is what is good, right, and/or best, right.

You have a toxic view of others and this transcendant hallucination about yourself gives yourself permission to speak ill of people in general and hurl insults at individual, such as Harbal, who help more people than you ever will.

1. you appear to have what some would call a very unfavorable view of me, which you just cannot shake nor get rid of, right?

2. 'This view' that 'you' have of 'me', which some might also say and call is a 'toxic view', is what is giving "yourself' 'permission' to speak ill of 'me', and to 'hurl' insults 'at me' as well.

3. Why do you believe that the human being here, koen nas "harbal", helps more people than 'I' 'ever will'?

And, how do you believe that this is happening and occurring, exactly?

It is beyond you to consider the effects of your toxic attitudes.

Have you ever considered that, just maybe, your views and beliefs 'of me' could be false, wrong, inaccurate, or incorrect in absolutely any way whatsoever, let alone absolutely fully?

Obviously that one, "attofishpi", and you, are very selfish and greedy human beings

Also being blindingly greedy and selfish as you all, obviously, are, there is no wonder why you all have not yet seen what the words 'eternal dalmatian' refers to, exactly.

This one has time and again said he does not have or make general judgments of humans here. He is a liar.

Have I really said these words expressed here?

It's convenient how little you remember of what you say or imply that you are or waste our time asking when you know you have.

Why would you assume we haven't seen those words?

LOL I never did.

Gaslighting.

False accusing.

Age is losing it

This one has completely lost it here. it actually is, again, believing that its own made up assumption is true, right, accurate, and correct..

Projection.

Perhaps he meant we don't know the meaning of the phrase or haven't seen that phrase before. Why would he assume that.
Age is losing it.

Talk about this one going absolutely astray, and off track, here, and again because of its already obtained beliefs and presumptions.

This one is so far afield and completely off track that it is completely lost here.

Here's Age: another selfish egotist with no integrity.

Okay. If this is what this one believes is true, and it does, then this is true. Well to this one anyway.

[Age]

I disagree. To say age is losing it is to imply age previously had it.

My apologies. Though I will keep alive the connotation that I see some further deterioration of late.

Will you keep alive in relation to 'what', exactly?

[Age]

I disagree. To say age is losing it is to imply age previously had it.

My apologies. Though I will keep alive the connotation that I see some further deterioration of late.

Age may have thought that if it gets off the heavy meds that slowed it down, and starts writing a lot more normally, and stops acting all mysterious and just comes out with its absolute truth, then we will really have no choice but to agree with it. But instead things only got worse, we can now point out its nonsense quicker and easier. Age is now about to explode.

Okay.

[Iwannaplato]

I disagree. To say age is losing it is to imply age previously had it.

My apologies. Though I will keep alive the connotation that I see some further deterioration of late.

Will you keep alive in relation to 'what', exactly?

It is the connotation of seeing futher deterioration that I will keep alive. It's openly metaphorical and was in a post to FJ. If you don't understand it, it's alright he likely did and he's capable of asking for clarification if he didn't.

[Iwannaplato]

But this is not even 'a' reason, let alone any other type of reason.

Correct.

The conclusion is not justified by your 'reasoning', but beyond that the conclusion is false and does not fit my experience.

But I had not, yet, provided 'the reason'.

You said it was glaringly obvious or some other similar phrase, which is why I put 'reasoning' in scare quotes.

So, please demonstrate that Harbal is what you accused him of being.

The human beings known as "harbal" here, in this forum, is as greedy and selfish as all of you adult human beings are, and were, back in the days when this was being written, in that all of you adult human beings will do things, for your own, and for a select few, benefit which causes and creates the detriment of and for others/things.

1) you don't understand what greedy means to most people.

While you believe that 'this' is true, then 'this' will remain true, to you. Even if 'it' is not.

And so it is with your myriad of beliefs.

You insulted Harbal who has generally treated you kindly and patiently. And your insult was not restricted to some specific facet of his behavior or attitudes. It was a general insult. You summed him up.

It's ironic that if he said he was something, you might very well correct him, as you have told other people they are wrong when they label themselves. And then you go ahead and do it yourself. It's good people generally don't take you seriously.

[Iwannaplato]

1. you appear to have what some would call a very unfavorable view of me,

Yes.

which you just cannot shake nor get rid of, right?

Well, you keep confirming it.

[Age]

I never said that it was not.

I just asked why would you even want to begin to assume, what you 'would'.

Why would I assume something that is true? It's called knowing.

Obviously no one else here has asked the question that you did just here, which you also answered. So, why are you answering your own question here?

And, why are you 'you' even asking questions to "your" own 'self' here, and answering them "yourself" here, on a philosophy forum?

Okay, and once again you appear to have absolutely no interest nor curiosity in wanting to gain clarity, learn, nor understand here, as well

Because I am dealing with someone who chooses yet again, not to saying anything interesting, but seems incredulous I would mention something true.

But what was it, exactly, which you obviously believe to be absolutely true here?

Not that you will clarify, but if you did, openly and honestly, then 'we' will 'see' what the actual Truth is here. Which you have failed, once again, to notice, and to comprehend, here.

When this is pointed out, that it was true, this person opts not to share something they think is interesting and goes on playing games.

When did you, supposedly, point out that 'it' was true?

LOL you do not even know what the 'it' is here, exactly.

Also, this one's habit continues

This same person (you if you are confused here) hasn't managed, over a period of months to produce anything particularly interesting, in conversation with me and others.

I never thought I had.

Do you believe that you have produced absolutely any thing interesting within this forum?

If yes, then will you list any of them?

If no, then why not?

This person has managed to deny that it does precisely what it claims others do and which it is critical of those others for doing.

This one has managed to continually talk 'about me', as though it is infatuated 'by me'.

This person has presented both ideas and processes that it seems to think are profound which are not.

If this is what you believe is absolutely true, then so be it.

Nor are they particularly unique. And that includes interactions you've had with generous, patient people like Harbal. Even when kind people like him, who you've now summed up negatively, adjust to your desires in the communication, nothing unique or profound ends up being produced by you.

Okay. Again, if this is what you want to choose is absolutely true, then so be it.

There is a kind of narcissism in your questions in context. Life presents us many options for exploration/investigation and having dynamic relations with something. We are always choosing something over other things, instead of other things. You assume that when someone does not end up curious about you, that they have a problem, perhaps going into one of your statements about human beings at the time this is being written and your judgments of those humans.

Oh but people like you and "atla" show a great deal of curiosity and interest in regards 'to me'.

your assumptions above here also could not be more false and wrong.

Actually, you've done little of interest in terms of content. Further you've told us that you are not necessarily communicating here for us. If you aren't communicating here with us as the audience, you might want to consider that that is palpable. That on some level people pick that up and respond to your lack of real interest in communicating with us, with a similar disinterest in you. If you are here with us an as audiance, what an idiotic thing to say: that we are not necessarily the audience for your communication here.

For a self-professed "english teacher" you do not appear to have obtained that much understanding of 'english words' and the irrefutable Fact that they can be used to mean other things than in just the extremely limited way that you believe that they can be.

There are a lot of instances where your communication is unnecessarily cryptic (evasive) or simply stupid to warrent intelligent preference to be curious about other people and and other things/processes.

Okay. If this what you see and believe here, then this is what you see and do

An early version of this idiocy....

My TARGETED AUDIENCE IS a VERY SPECIFIC AUDIENCE. Which does NOT necessarily exist IN the days when this is being written.

An entity that communicates like this has a serious problem

So, what is 'that problem', to you, exactly?

And, what does the 'problem' word even mean, to you, exactly?

and while that in and of itself can lead to a little curiosity - how did this entity get like this and why is it so clueless about itself? - that it might have some useful knowledge is precisely counterindicated buy such utterances. I know you can introspect and reflect enough to figure out why. At least, so far you either lack the willingness to try or the ability to actually reflect well over this. And you seem to want to make others responsible for holding your hand through this, even though in the process you will dump judgments on anyone who tried. Judgments starting with 'This one....' or even referring to others as 'it'. I wonder if you even know your historical predecessors. Others to, even if they avoid your without consciously connecting your toxic behavior to the toxic behavior of past figures

.

And it is, exactly, these type of thinking, assumptions and beliefs, why these people, back then, took so, so long to 'catch up', and understand.

Of course, I am not particularly curious about what a person like this, who is not ever quite ready to say anything of much interest, and who is always trying to get others to say things so he can peck at them in a condescending way, might have to say.

For someone who is, purportedly and supposedly, 'not particularly curios' 'about me' you spend quite a fair bit of time diagnosing and talking 'about me'.

Why do you assume and believe that I was saying some thing was incorrect, and not factual, there, in what you wrote?

What you fail to understand is that it is the most charitable thing to assume.

LOL 'This one', still, appears continue to continue to believe that it has no other choice but to continue to assume things here.

Which is absolutely hilarious, especially considering the amount of times I have expressed and suggested what it could do, instead.

Sometimes I give entities the benefit of the doubt This has on rare occasion led to something good. But with you...nah.

Okay.

But here you are appearing to not be able to stop "yourself" from doing it.

Which makes some people wonder 'WHY?'

Do you yet know why you have not yet been able to stop "yourself" from doing it "wannaplato"?

[Age]

My apologies. Though I will keep alive the connotation that I see some further deterioration of late.

Will you keep alive in relation to 'what', exactly?

It is the connotation of seeing futher deterioration that I will keep alive.

Obviously.

And, obviously, you have failed, absolutely, to comprehend and understand what I actually wrote, and meant here, once again.

you, really, do miss and/or misunderstand just about every sentence that I say and write here.

It's openly metaphorical and was in a post to FJ. If you don't understand it, it's alright he likely did and he's capable of asking for clarification if he didn't.

Oh, so it is in regards to some thing that you said and wrote, in some post, some time age, which you will, once again, not just clarify, exactly.

Thus this one's habit continues.

Also, obviously, 'that one' is capable of asking you for clarification. But, if it did, then would you clarify for it?

If yes, then why do not clarify, for me, as well?

[Age]

But this is not even 'a' reason, let alone any other type of reason.

Correct.

So, why did you say that it was a reason. And, then go on and on about?

The conclusion is not justified by your 'reasoning', but beyond that the conclusion is false and does not fit my experience.

But I had not, yet, provided 'the reason'.

You said it was glaringly obvious or some other similar phrase, which is why I put 'reasoning' in scare quotes.

Once again, this one has failed, absolutely, to comprehend and understand here.

So, please demonstrate that Harbal is what you accused him of being.

The human beings known as "harbal" here, in this forum, is as greedy and selfish as all of you adult human beings are, and were, back in the days when this was being written, in that all of you adult human beings will do things, for your own, and for a select few, benefit which causes and creates the detriment of and for others/things.

1) you don't understand what greedy means to most people.

While you believe that 'this' is true, then 'this' will remain true, to you. Even if 'it' is not.

And so it is with your myriad of beliefs.

But I only believe one thing only.

Have you forgotten this again?

Or, do you purposely choose the words you use here?

You insulted Harbal who has generally treated you kindly and patiently. And your insult was not restricted to some specific facet of his behavior or attitudes. It was a general insult. You summed him up.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one, still, believes that when I just point out what a human being does, or what you human beings do, then this is a so-called 'insult'.

After all of this time this one, still, cannot comprehend what I have, specifically, said and pointed out, to it, on many occasions.

It's ironic that if he said he was something, you might very well correct him, as you have told other people they are wrong when they label themselves. And then you go ahead and do it yourself.

Did I say, 'are', or, 'being',exactly?

When you, and if you ever do, answer this clarifying question, openly and honestly, then 'we' will have some thing to actually 'look at' and 'see', in order to find out if you have actually 'picked up' some thing Correct here, or, if you are just presuming some thing that is Wrong and Incorrect here again.

So, again, 'we' are eating, 'for you', now.

It's good people generally don't take you seriously.

'Good', in relation to 'what', exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

Obviously no one else here has asked the question that you did just here, which you also answered. So, why are you answering your own question here?

Perhaps for the same reason you do it in those instances when you do it. One can only hope you notice this.

And, why are you 'you' even asking questions to "your" own 'self' here, and answering them "yourself" here, on a philosophy forum?

Again, your limited use and understanding of English is showing again, or you are asking a question about someone else's behavior while you know the answer. In any case it was a type of epiplexis or counter-questioning. This can be done in the first person in response to questions aimed at the speaker/writer. It can also be use in reflective or introspective writing.

But what was it, exactly, which you obviously believe to be absolutely true here?

And here we have an example of you asking a question but rewroding as if I said something I did not. This is quite close the the phenomenon you asked about earlier in your post. Perhaps you can learn something from your own behavior.

Not that you will clarify, but if you did, openly and honestly, then 'we' will 'see' what the actual Truth is here.

Promises, promises.

[Iwannaplato]

Will you keep alive in relation to 'what', exactly?

It is the connotation of seeing futher deterioration that I will keep alive.

Obviously.

And, obviously, you have failed, absolutely, to comprehend and understand what I actually wrote, and meant here, once again.

you, really, do miss and/or misunderstand just about every sentence that I say and write here.

Gotta love the leaping to judgment before reading further.

It's openly metaphorical and was in a post to FJ. If you don't understand it, it's alright he likely did and he's capable of asking for clarification if he didn't.

Oh, so it is in regards to some thing that you said and wrote, in some post, some time age, which you will, once again, not just clarify, exactly.

Such poor understanding you have here. Consider that when two people communicate who have a broader set of tools in communication that you have, this may very well lead to you making incorrect assumptions, as you do here.

Also, obviously, 'that one' is capable of asking you for clarification. But, if it did, then would you clarify for it?

Flannel Jesus is not an it.

If yes, then why do not clarify, for me, as well?

I have explained this in general already. If you remember, great. If you don't, then perhaps you should seek professional help.

[Age]

Obviously no one else here has asked the question that you did just here, which you also answered. So, why are you answering your own question here?

Perhaps for the same reason you do it in those instances when you do it. One can only hope you notice this.

So,

1. Once more this one just does not clarify. And, the reason why this one does not I have explained already.

2. If you believe that I have done this, then will you show where, and when?

If no, then why not?

And, why are you 'you' even asking questions to "your" own 'self' here, and answering them "yourself" here, on a philosophy forum?

Again, your limited use and understanding of English is showing again, or you are asking a question about someone else's behavior while you know the answer. In any case it was a type of epiplexis or counter-questioning.

But it had nothing to do with what I actually said, and meant.

But it appears, once again, you do not even know what I was saying, and meaning.

This can be done in the first person in response to questions aimed at the speaker/writer. It can also be use in reflective or introspective writing.

But it had nothing to do with any thing in what you quoted.

But what was it, exactly, which you obviously believe to be absolutely true here?

And here we have an example of you asking a question but rewroding as if I said something I did not.

Ah, so now you are saying and claiming that you did not say it.

But all any one has to do is just look at your threads above here to see that you actually did say it.

This is quite close the the phenomenon you asked about earlier in your post. Perhaps you can learn something from your own behavior.

Could you also learn some thing/s from your own behavior?

If yes, then maybe all can learn some thing/s from their own behaviors. Well that is if and when they are Truly open and honest about their mis/behaviors. As I have been continually saying and pointing out from the outset.

Not that you will clarify, but if you did, openly and honestly, then 'we' will 'see' what the actual Truth is here.

Promises, promises.

'We' will never ever 'know' why 'you' continue to be so devious and elusive here.

[Age]

Will you keep alive in relation to 'what', exactly?

It is the connotation of seeing futher deterioration that I will keep alive.

Obviously.

And, obviously, you have failed, absolutely, to comprehend and understand what I actually wrote, and meant here, once again.

you, really, do miss and/or misunderstand just about every sentence that I say and write here.

Gotta love the leaping to judgment before reading further.

It's openly metaphorical and was in a post to FJ. If you don't understand it, it's alright he likely did and he's capable of asking for clarification if he didn't.

Oh, so it is in regards to some thing that you said and wrote, in some post, some time age, which you will, once again, not just clarify, exactly.

Such poor understanding you have here. Consider that when two people communicate who have a broader set of tools in communication that you have, this may very well lead to you making incorrect assumptions, as you do here.

Also, obviously, 'that one' is capable of asking you for clarification. But, if it did, then would you clarify for it?

Flannel Jesus is not an it.

If yes, then why do not clarify, for me, as well?

I have explained this in general already. If you remember, great. If you don't, then perhaps you should seek professional help.

Once more this one has missed or misunderstood just about absolutely every word and sentence that I have said, and meant, here.

[Iwannaplato]

So, why did you say that it was a reason. And, then go on and on about?

Are you absolutely sure I said that it was a reason? You used the phrase 'go on and on about'? Did I actually travel somewhere, when I went on an on? And how much more did I travel when I went on and on? Is it further than just going on (with one use of 'on')? I am trying my best to understand your literal use of language since you think philosophy forums are not a place for metaphorical communication. Was it the means of transport that you object to?

The conclusion is not justified by your 'reasoning', but beyond that the conclusion is false and does not fit my experience.

But I had not, yet, provided 'the reason'.

You said it was glaringly obvious or some other similar phrase, which is why I put 'reasoning' in scare quotes.

Once again, this one has failed, absolutely, to comprehend and understand here.

Oh, I completely understood. You said you had not provided a reason (for some reason). Since you were making up and issue, I went back to what you did, and responded again to what you did and thene explained that I put 'reasoning' in scare quotes. I am happy that you, for some, unknown reason, wanted to tell me you hadn't provided a reason. But this was a not-relevant tangent.

But I only believe one thing only.

No. Of course this isn't the case. Unless you are suggesting I should just accept everyone's assertions about themselves, regardless of their behavior and assertions, this was a very strange response. It's almost as if you think you have some magical power to prevent people from saying things you do not like or consider untrue or you are an autocrat or you live in a world where everyone, for example, introspects well.

This one, still, believes that when I just point out what a human being does, or what you human beings do, then this is a so-called 'insult'.

After all of this time this one, still, cannot comprehend what I have, specifically, said and pointed out, to it, on many occasions.

This is a very similar pattern as the previous one. Age is surprised that people don't immediately accept his assertions. He has said X before and it is hilarious that another person doesn't just accept his views of Age or the world or other people, etc. This is solipsistic behavior and fascinating. One wonders if he notices that he doesn't just accept what other people say, even if they say the same thing many times. Poor thing.

It's ironic that if he said he was something, you might very well correct him, as you have told other people they are wrong when they label themselves. And then you go ahead and do it yourself.

Did I say, 'are', or, 'being',exactly?

Will this one ever learn to communicate by taking stands instead of asking questions?

When you, and if you ever do, answer this clarifying question, openly and honestly, then 'we' will have some thing to actually 'look at' and 'see', in order to find out if you have actually 'picked up' some thing Correct here, or, if you are just presuming some thing that is Wrong and Incorrect here again.

So, again, 'we' are eating, 'for you', now.

Ah, showing he can use metaphors, at least when others have. At least, I am assuming Age knows he is using a metaphor here. Why would I assume that? Well, just being charitable.

It's good people generally don't take you seriously.

'Good', in relation to 'what', exactly?

People's mental and likely even physical health.