What do you think ? 💭

[Age]

Yes, this is some thing that you do do.

I, however, have never framed 'others' as so-called half empty glasses.

Sure, the people who see people as half-empty glasses don't use that phrase since it is critical of their attitude. I was categorizing your attitude as you express it here in your posts.

And, you are absolutely free to place what you, absolutely, Falsely presume as my attitude into absolutely any category you like to. But, if your accusation, claim, or presumption is just Wrong, then it is just Wrong.

your presumption of my attitude here, is, once more, absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, this applies no matter how much you believe your presumptions and views here are true, right, accurate, or correct.

Also, are you even remotely aware of how you express 'your attitude', here? And, in what category that it belongs, exactly?

And note, in the following quotes, Age does not qualify with words like some and many. Here are some of Age's recent thoughts on all human beings......

Once again 'this one' has turned another thread into being 'about me'. The title of this thread is; 'What do you think?', which was meant to be in regards to something else but, again, "iwannaplato" appears to have thought that title question is in regards 'to me'.

Or, maybe "iwannaplato" just cannot stop "itself" from 'looking at'', 'judging', and 'talking about' 'me'.

This really was how absolutely STUPID human beings used to be.

[in the unlikely case some third party is reading this,.. Age considers our present time, the past, his past, so this is all people alive now]

LOL 'now'.

This really was how narrowed, and self-centered', some really were, back in those 'very olden days', when this was being written.

Also, 'this one' has managed to absolutely completely miss what I meant, and express it absolutely Wrong, and Incorrectly.

But, again, this is what happens when one believes that their own pre/assumptions are true, and correct.

So, who cares what just a human being says, or claims?

Now her [sic] is a prime example of why the human beings, back then, when this was being written, took so very, very long.
It was this APE-thinking that was holding and keeping them back.

If no, then just maybe the species known as 'human being' has not reached 'Truly intelligent' status, yet, in the days when this is being written

Once more, here 'we' have more proof of just how 'monetary orientated' these adult human beings were, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

And, each and every one of them is verifiably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:44 pm
I already, know and understand, fully, why you human beings have and make False perspectives and interpretations, so there is absolutely nothing to 'deal with' here.

Note the contempt in the word choice in the next one:

Once again, and as you will readily admit is True, that if, and when, you 'see' contempt here, then that in no way at all means that there is actually any contempt at all.

So, note the attempt by 'this one' to imply that there is some thing 'there', which may well be not at all.

'This attitude' if 'this one' could be placed in the category of 'intentional deception'.

And, what else does not make sense is just about all of the so-called 'suffering: that you adult human beings whinge and complain about, and claim exist.

They actually believed that they were absolutely right even when they had no actual proof, and were relying on their own made up assumptions, beliefs, and/or stories alone. Individual adult human beings were really like what the one here known as "henry quirk" is showing and proving, here.

Thank you for reminding the readers, here, if what I have said and claimed, here, and let 'us' not forget that I have also said and claimed that I can, and will, prove all those claims irrefutably True.

Now, are there any posters here who would like to challenge, and/or question, me on absolutely any of those claims?

I know I would certainly enjoy the interaction, and 'the outcome'.

That's just a tiny recent sample. Age will of course say something along the lines of that I have completely misunderstoos, etc.

And, LOL this is because you have.

And note that a search for postive remarks would find very little in Age's posts.

LOL
LOL
LOL

There was not a so-called 'negative remark' there.

you only 'see' 'negativity' 'there' because you, frequently, 'look at' and 'judge' others, negatively, as you have proved once more above here, so you envision, imagine, or presume and believe others do it as much or like you do it.

Also, if, and when, you also fully understand how you human beings 'came about', collectively and individually, and how and why you all think and do what you all do, then you will also see and fully understand how and why there is not one negative remark in absolutely any thing that I have said, and meant, here.

But, from 'the way: you are continuing on here, you are in absolutely no way of coming even close to discovering, nor learning, and understanding these things, even a bit, let alone completely.

While looking at just his recent posts on humans, I never had to reject a post because it had positive views of humans. No, I never saw one of those. I did skip ones where he qualified with 'some' or 'many' and those included negative judgments also.

you, really, do spend quite some time 'looking over' 'my writings' in the hope that you can and will 'find some things that you could, and would like to, to 'try to' use 'against me', correct?

Now, it is possible (though unlikely) that Age actually has a more balanced view of humans, and he has said he is here to learn how to communicate better with humans.

Once again, you, still, have not gotten this Correct.

If this is actually the case, one can only hope that instead of blaming others for what his communication is like, he will modify his communication to present his non-glass half empty view of humans.

LOL 'This one' is living proof of how these human beings just could not see past their own beliefs, nor presumptions.

Even when irrefutable proof is out in front of them, if it opposes their belief or presumption, then they just could not see it.

As 'this one' here keeps proving absolutely irrefutably True, for me.

It certainly seems like you think you do.

And, it is certainly obvious that you believe, absolutely, otherwise.

So,your having seen a G.U.T.O.E. which cannot be refuted backs up supports and verifies that you look at and see things as they are. That may support it for you, but since you have not, as yet communicated this G.U.T.O.E. to us, it does not back up, support and verify your claim

But, how do you know, with any certainty, that it does not back up, support, and verify my claim?

I said nothing of the kind.

LOL
LOL
LOL.

you just said that because it has not yet been communicated to you, then it does not back up, support, and verify my claim.

So, you said, exactly, some thing of the kind.

Note: your question is 'how do I know' not 'do you know', which means it assumes I think I know or do know? Your assumption.

LOL This is another prime example of you 'jumping to a False conclusion'.based upon nothing at all other than a Wrong presumption of yours, alone.

you made the completely STUPID assumption and claim that because you have not been made aware of some thing, then 'that thing' does not back up, support, nor verify 'my claim'. Which was, obviously, 'your assumption', and 'your claim', as can be clearly seen and proved above here. you were 'trying to claim' that 'it' did not back up, support, nor verify what I said 'it' does. (And, laughingly, you claimed this because you have not, yet, been made aware of 'it', which is Truly illogical and irrational.)

Now, what you might have meant something else, which is what I thought you might have been meaning, which makes perfect sense. But, I only go on, and by, 'your chosen words', alone, here

I 'look at' and 'see' things exactly as they are.
for us.

Obviously just a claim by itself will not necessarily back up, support, nor verify, for another.

This goes without saying, and thus did not need saying.

And yet here you are repeating what you say does not need to be said, whereas many mere human beings, whom you hold in disdain, would have more effectively responded to with 'I agree', avoiding saying something you say does not need saying.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that I have so-called 'disdain' for you human beings?

As for the rest of what you said and wrote here, the way you twisted things here in futher attempts at deception is blatantly clear, as well.

Perhaps you'll mull over why you opted not to respond in this more efficient and colliegial manner. Or you won't.

LOL 'This one' is, still, trying to get me to respond to 'those human beings', back in those 'olden days' when they were 'the ones', still, looking for answers, in 'the ways' that they did.

'This one', really, does make me laugh.

[Iwannaplato]

And, you are absolutely free to place what you, absolutely, Falsely presume as my attitude into absolutely any category you like to. But, if your accusation, claim, or presumption is just Wrong, then it is just Wrong.

Well, it is possible, though highly unlikely, as I said, that your attitude does not match your communication. One can only hope that if that is the case, you modify your communication.

And note, in the following quotes, Age does not qualify with words like some and many. Here are some of Age's recent thoughts on all human beings......

Once again 'this one' has turned another thread into being 'about me'. The title of this thread is; 'What do you think?', which was meant to be in regards to something else but, again, "iwannaplato" appears to have thought that title question is in regards 'to me'.

Really? that's your conclusion, that I thought the thread was about you?

Even though I responded to Fairy when she asked me a question and followed that up with responses to her responses on that topic. I don't know if you posted before that in the thread or not. I only focused on your when you focused on me.

In any case, when I responded to Fairy ON THE TOPIC when she asked my thoughts on a paragraph, to explain my thoughts I gave examples from my life.

Did Age respond to my thoughts on the paragraph? No.
Did he focus on the examples I used to help explain my thoughts that had to do with? Yes.
Did Age, then focus on me and my personal life? Yes.

Now, I actually think it was fine that he asked questions related to my post on my personal life. I mentioned them, of course he gets to ask. If it had been someone else, I might well have answered, and I did so in response to Fairy.

But now, suddenly, Age seems to be trying to find away to make my response to him wrong and out of place, even those his focus in response to me was not on the topic that Fairy raised, in response to me, but he focused on me. Nor was it a response to the OP. And when I said I did not want to respond to him about that part of my life - note respond to him in particular - he made this an issue. This was also about me and not the topic. The topic maker, the OP writer, brought up a new topic, directed at me. At that point you focused on me, and I don't think you responded to the topic in the OP or that post.

But if I focus on Age, this is not appropriate, to Age. When I decide not to respond to questions focused on me, he says more things about me. Age's left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing.

Or, maybe "iwannaplato" just cannot stop "itself" from 'looking at'', 'judging', and 'talking about' 'me'.

I'm not an it or itself.

It seems that while he may be honest that he intends to learn how to communicate with humans at the time this is being written, in practice he isn't interested, unless it is small details. One could hope that without acknowledging that he had responsibility for the conclusions I drew, since they fit his communication, he will modify his communication. If it really is the unlikely case that he does not have negative views of humans. I don't know what the charitable interpretation is: either his communication is fundamentally quite terrible and does not reflect his views and judgments or he is a liar.

[Age]

And, you are absolutely free to place what you, absolutely, Falsely presume as my attitude into absolutely any category you like to. But, if your accusation, claim, or presumption is just Wrong, then it is just Wrong.

Well, it is possible, though highly unlikely, as I said, that your attitude does not match your communication.

LOL 'highly unlikely'.

Once again, 'we' can see just how absolutely 'very narrowed' 'this one' here really is.

'This one', still, believes that 'the way' that 'this one' 'looks at' and 'sees' things is the best, truest, and right and correct way. Which, obviously, could not get and be any further from the actual Real Truth.

One can only hope that if that is the case, you modify your communication.

So, if you believe that this, really, is only, and thus all, that you can do here, then so be it.

And note, in the following quotes, Age does not qualify with words like some and many. Here are some of Age's recent thoughts on all human beings......

Once again 'this one' has turned another thread into being 'about me'. The title of this thread is; 'What do you think?', which was meant to be in regards to something else but, again, "iwannaplato" appears to have thought that title question is in regards 'to me'.

Really? that's your conclusion, that I thought the thread was about you?

Well, obviously, with 'your attitude', and 'communication style', here, you have turned the question, 'What do you think?' to be 'about me', again.

If this is not the case, then, 'What do you think about there being only One, only?'

Also, and by the way, 'your claim' above here is also absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

Even though I responded to Fairy when she asked me a question and followed that up with responses to her responses on that topic. I don't know if you posted before that in the thread or not. I only focused on your when you focused on me.

Really? Is this what you 'saw', and concluded, here?

In any case, when I responded to Fairy ON THE TOPIC when she asked my thoughts on a paragraph, to explain my thoughts I gave examples from my life.

Did Age respond to my thoughts on the paragraph? No.

But, you just said and claimed that I 'focused on you', so if I did not respond to 'your thoughts', then how and when, exactly, was I, supposedly, 'focusing on you'? Not that you clarify.

Did he focus on the examples I used to help explain my thoughts that had to do with? Yes.
Did Age, then focus on me and my personal life? Yes.

Now, I actually think it was fine that he asked questions related to my post on my personal life. I mentioned them, of course he gets to ask. If it had been someone else, I might well have answered, and I did so in response to Fairy.

But now, suddenly, Age seems to be trying to find away to make my response to him wrong and out of place, even those his focus in response to me was not on the topic that Fairy raised, in response to me, but he focused on me. Nor was it a response to the OP. And when I said I did not want to respond to him about that part of my life - note respond to him in particular - he made this an issue. This was also about me and not the topic. The topic maker, the OP writer, brought up a new topic, directed at me. At that point you focused on me, and I don't think you responded to the topic in the OP or that post.

But if I focus on Age, this is not appropriate, to Age. When I decide not to respond to questions focused on me, he says more things about me. Age's left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing.

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

But, if you believe this is true, and also admit that what you believe could well be absolutely Wrong, then okay.

Or, maybe "iwannaplato" just cannot stop "itself" from 'looking at'', 'judging', and 'talking about' 'me'.

I'm not an it or itself.

So, 'this one' believes, absolutely, that it is not one of the other its, which together make up and form the One.

It is like 'this one' believes that it is somehow different, better, or more than all of the other its.

It seems that while he may be honest that he intends to learn how to communicate with humans at the time this is being written, in practice he isn't interested, unless it is small details.

'This one', still, has not been able to see, comprehend, and understand the actual words that I have used, and meant, here. it, stil, gets Wrong what I have said and written here, no matter how many times I say and write it.

One could hope that without acknowledging that he had responsibility for the conclusions I drew,

LOL

So, how and why is it, supposedly, 'my responsibility', exactly, for you not having been able to say and write, verbatim, what I have said and written, here?

since they fit his communication, he will modify his communication.

Further, how and why is it, supposedly, 'my responsibility' for you continually concluding Wrongly, especially when you cannot even repeat what I say and write Correctly?

The very reason/s why 'this one' draws absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect conclusions is blatantly obvious.

LOL 'This one' actually believes that it is 'my responsibility' for the conclusions that it draws.

If it really is the unlikely case that he does not have negative views of humans. I don't know what the charitable interpretation is: either his communication is fundamentally quite terrible and does not reflect his views and judgments or he is a liar.

'This one' would have to be one of the slowest learners here.

Once more, for the very slow of learning here, I will suggest that all of you seek out and obtain actual clarification/verification BEFORE you assume absolutely any thing. That way you will never make a False, Wrong, Inaccurate, now Incorrect conclusion, EVER, nor will you ever make so many completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect conclusions as 'this one' does, and is showing and proving here.

[Iwannaplato]

Once again 'this one' has turned another thread into being 'about me'. The title of this thread is; 'What do you think?', which was meant to be in regards to something else but, again, "iwannaplato" appears to have thought that title question is in regards 'to me'.

Really? that's your conclusion, that I thought the thread was about you?

Well, obviously, with 'your attitude', and 'communication style', here, you have turned the question, 'What do you think?' to be 'about me', again.

If this is not the case, then, 'What do you think about there being only One, only?'

I responded to the OP, Age. And then later when the focus shifted and Fairy asked me a question about a specific paragraph, I responded to that also.

Did Age respond to my thoughts on the paragraph? No.

But, you just said and claimed that I 'focused on you', so if I did not respond to 'your thoughts', then how and when, exactly, was I, supposedly, 'focusing on you'? Not that you clarify.

I had already explained that you did not respond to my thoughts on the subject but on the parts of my post that were about my personal life. Certainly you have the right to do that. I explained why I would not want to respond to yuo on that topic. From there you continued to focus on and comment on me.

So, 'this one' believes, absolutely, that it is not one of the other its, which together make up and form the One.

It is like 'this one' believes that it is somehow different, better, or more than all of the other its.

No, it's not like that at all. And referring to people as 'it' and 'itself' does not diminish the implied multiplicity. You get to imply and use terms that imply there is multiplicity, but when others do it is a problem and you make guesses about their positions.

One could hope that without acknowledging that he had responsibility for the conclusions I drew,

LOL

So, how and why is it, supposedly, 'my responsibility', exactly, for you not having been able to say and write, verbatim, what I have said and written, here?

I quoted you directly a couple of posts back. When does quoting your directly ever make a difference? For tiny errors, typos and the like. When showing someone supposedly interested in communicating better how often his communication presents negative judgments of humans that he supposedly does not have, not only can one not expect a concession that he might have something to learn, but one can expect dismissal, without explanation. A labelling. It's a style of communication and you're free to use it. But when you act as if quoting you absolutely correctly will make some difference.....nah.

So, I won't respond to or focus on you any more in this thread. When Fairy returns, perhaps she'll take up the thread and perhaps I'll respond to her or someone else on topic.

[Age]

Once again 'this one' has turned another thread into being 'about me'. The title of this thread is; 'What do you think?', which was meant to be in regards to something else but, again, "iwannaplato" appears to have thought that title question is in regards 'to me'.

Really? that's your conclusion, that I thought the thread was about you?

Well, obviously, with 'your attitude', and 'communication style', here, you have turned the question, 'What do you think?' to be 'about me', again.

If this is not the case, then, 'What do you think about there being only One, only?'

I responded to the OP, Age. And then later when the focus shifted and Fairy asked me a question about a specific paragraph, I responded to that also.

Did Age respond to my thoughts on the paragraph? No.

But, you just said and claimed that I 'focused on you', so if I did not respond to 'your thoughts', then how and when, exactly, was I, supposedly, 'focusing on you'? Not that you clarify.

I had already explained that you did not respond to my thoughts on the subject but on the parts of my post that were about my personal life. Certainly you have the right to do that. I explained why I would not want to respond to yuo on that topic. From there you continued to focus on and comment on me.

So, 'this one' believes, absolutely, that it is not one of the other its, which together make up and form the One.

It is like 'this one' believes that it is somehow different, better, or more than all of the other its.

No, it's not like that at all. And referring to people as 'it' and 'itself' does not diminish the implied multiplicity. You get to imply and use terms that imply there is multiplicity, but when others do it is a problem and you make guesses about their positions.

One could hope that without acknowledging that he had responsibility for the conclusions I drew,

LOL

So, how and why is it, supposedly, 'my responsibility', exactly, for you not having been able to say and write, verbatim, what I have said and written, here?

I quoted you directly a couple of posts back. When does quoting your directly ever make a difference? For tiny errors, typos and the like. When showing someone supposedly interested in communicating better how often his communication presents negative judgments of humans that he supposedly does not have, not only can one not expect a concession that he might have something to learn, but one can expect dismissal, without explanation. A labelling. It's a style of communication and you're free to use it. But when you act as if quoting you absolutely correctly will make some difference.....nah.

So, I won't respond to or focus on you any more in this thread. When Fairy returns, perhaps she'll take up the thread and perhaps I'll respond to her or someone else on topic.

you are Wrong, again.

There is only One, only.