Questions to Age

[accelafine]

I rest my case. I'm pretty sure there's another as well who the insane one (or could someone even be classified as insane when they are part of the majority?) never named except to say that they wanted to 'jump each others' bones'. That's a ridiculous expression by the way.

His emphasis on others "viewing things from another perspective" is his way of saying "see things from mine". And when people do and there is nothing but contradiction he cries victim.

Kenny and Fairy have a 'thing'. They prefer to 'engage' with each other publicly. It adds to their pleasure factor.

[Eodnhoj7]

I rest my case. I'm pretty sure there's another as well who the insane one (or could someone even be classified as insane when they are part of the majority?) never named except to say that they wanted to 'jump each others' bones'. That's a ridiculous expression by the way.

His emphasis on others "viewing things from another perspective" is his way of saying "see things from mine". And when people do and there is nothing but contradiction he cries victim.

Kenny and Fairy have a 'thing'. They prefer to 'engage' with each other publicly. It adds to their pleasure factor.

Of course, Kenny wants to play rough with others and when others do so in return he cries and latches on to the first sign of misplaced sympathy.

[Age]

I rest my case. I'm pretty sure there's another as well who the insane one (or could someone even be classified as insane when they are part of the majority?) never named except to say that they wanted to 'jump each others' bones'. That's a ridiculous expression by the way.

So, why then express 'it' 'that way', exactly?

Why not just express 'it' in 'the non ridiculous way', instead?

[Age]

There is, in absolutely no way, to feel like you 'should have' understood me one time, let alone many times.

Remember, 'I' am, here, in this forum, to only learn how to communicate, better, with you human beings. So, if absolutely any one of you, in the days when this is being written, even came close to understanding me, here, then this just goes to show how quickly, simply, and easily, you can obtain, back, the ability to 'listen', 'hear', and 'understand' better than others have yet.

you have only misunderstood me, on any number of occasions, because you just really did not want to digress away at all from what you were, then 'currently' believing and assuming was absolutely true. In other words you just did not want to 'look at' and 'see' things from another perspective.

Which is Truly understandable as 'that' is, exactly, what everyone else had been doing throughout 'your whole life', hitherto. you were only 'just doing' what your 'past experiences' had been 'teaching' 'you' to do.

I understand.

And to be honest, I wish there were more people like you in the world. Maybe there are more people like yourself, but I’ve never met them, not yet.

It comforts me to know people like you exist in this world. I was the ass when trying to communicate with you. You were not the ass.

Don't fall for the victim card. If Age is capable of writing this then he was capable all along of meeting people half way.

So, 'this one' believes, absolutely, that one can not 'learn' and 'progress', in Life, and instead when one does some thing, like writing words, for example, then that one could have always written 'like this' all along.

Which really does seem a very strange thing to believe. But, each to their own, as some say.

He seeks contradiction in the meaning of things for his own benefit

Really?

And, why do you believe 'this' to be absolutely true and right?

Also, in what 'way' would I benefit from some so-called and alleged 'seeking contradiction in the meaning of things', anyway?

By the way, I do not seek contradicting in the meaning of things' at all. However, if you human beings say and write thing, and there are contradictions in what you people 'mean', then, obviously, they can be seen and recognized.

Now, if you people, here, do not like 'me' to present and show and reveal 'the contradictions' in what you people say and mean, then I suggest obtaining non contradictory Truths and Facts before you even begin to consider presenting what you mean and claim.

and then when the whole forum says "enough" he wimpers like a child claiming to be a victim.

Here, if another prime example of 'confirmation bias' and/or of 'only being able to see, or hear, only 'that', which one only wanted to see, and hear'.

[Age]

I rest my case. I'm pretty sure there's another as well who the insane one (or could someone even be classified as insane when they are part of the majority?) never named except to say that they wanted to 'jump each others' bones'. That's a ridiculous expression by the way.

His emphasis on others "viewing things from another perspective" is his way of saying "see things from mine".

Is it?

'These people'. back when this was being written, really could not see past their own fixed and distorted views and beliefs.

And when people do and there is nothing but contradiction he cries victim.

If 'this' is what you, really, do want to believe is absolutely true, then 'this' is absolutely perfectly fine and okay, 'with me'.

[Age]

I rest my case. I'm pretty sure there's another as well who the insane one (or could someone even be classified as insane when they are part of the majority?) never named except to say that they wanted to 'jump each others' bones'. That's a ridiculous expression by the way.

His emphasis on others "viewing things from another perspective" is his way of saying "see things from mine". And when people do and there is nothing but contradiction he cries victim.

Kenny and Fairy have a 'thing'. They prefer to 'engage' with each other publicly. It adds to their pleasure factor.

Here 'we' have another prime example of 'confirmation bias' and how 'these people', back then, when this was being written, really could not see past 'their beliefs' and really could and did only 'see' what they really did 'want to see'.

[Age]

His emphasis on others "viewing things from another perspective" is his way of saying "see things from mine". And when people do and there is nothing but contradiction he cries victim.

Kenny and Fairy have a 'thing'. They prefer to 'engage' with each other publicly. It adds to their pleasure factor.

Of course, Kenny wants to play rough with others and when others do so in return he cries and latches on to the first sign of misplaced sympathy.

If absolutely any one of you see, saw, or feel 'sympathy', then that is solely absolutely on 'you', only.

Just like if absolutely any one of you felt, saw, or sees any so-called 'rough play' with others, by me, then 'that' also is completely and utterly 'on you'.

Again, 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum' and if absolutely any one presents absolutely that is not absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then 'expect' some form of criticizism, or critique.

I can and will 'stand behind', and for, absolutely every word and letter 'I' say, write, and present, here. 'I' am not sure why some of you people see, or feel like, 'this' is 'rough play' nor even anything else, other than for what it really just actually is, exactly. Once more, if you can not back up and support 'your position/claim' with irrefutable proofs, or facts, then I suggest do not present them in a public philosophy forum of all places. I also suggest if one can not critique, challenge, nor question me on just the actual words that I have presented, alone, then just do not bother responding. If one is agreeing and accepting of 'my words', then there is also no need to bother responding, although it does help me tremendously in learning and knowing what actually is making sense, to you human beings.

[Fairy]

There is, in absolutely no way, to feel like you 'should have' understood me one time, let alone many times.

Remember, 'I' am, here, in this forum, to only learn how to communicate, better, with you human beings. So, if absolutely any one of you, in the days when this is being written, even came close to understanding me, here, then this just goes to show how quickly, simply, and easily, you can obtain, back, the ability to 'listen', 'hear', and 'understand' better than others have yet.

you have only misunderstood me, on any number of occasions, because you just really did not want to digress away at all from what you were, then 'currently' believing and assuming was absolutely true. In other words you just did not want to 'look at' and 'see' things from another perspective.

Which is Truly understandable as 'that' is, exactly, what everyone else had been doing throughout 'your whole life', hitherto. you were only 'just doing' what your 'past experiences' had been 'teaching' 'you' to do.

I understand.

And to be honest, I wish there were more people like you in the world. Maybe there are more people like yourself, but I’ve never met them, not yet.

It comforts me to know people like you exist in this world. I was the ass when trying to communicate with you. You were not the ass.

Don't fall for the victim card. If Age is capable of writing this then he was capable all along of meeting people half way.

He seeks contradiction in the meaning of things for his own benefit and then when the whole forum says "enough" he wimpers like a child claiming to be a victim.

I prefer philosophical dialogue to debate. As a life long seeker of truth I was always fascinated by the writings of Age.
I am a keen advocate for people of a trust-worthy, truthful, genuine character. Age is a high quality speaker for truth.
Quality and value is important to me. Age will never abandon or ignore any one on this forum, Age is selflessly giving.

Age provides all those attributes. Also, I am always striving endlessly to attracting the right people into my life. I’ve failed miserably every time. But I know the right people exist somewhere out there. Age proved that to me yesterday.

Truth is God, and God is Love. That’s an unwavering faith I will take to my grave. I intuitively know goodness runs through the veins of the entire universe. But we must first work with that or be against it which is counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Many times it felt more and more like a debate while talking to Age. I preferred us to have a mutual understanding but instead I encountered many speed bumps and blockages that were starting to make me feel very disturbed as if my mental health was suffering badly. I projected that feeling onto Age as if it was Age’s fault, as though Age was the disturbing one. But now I know the blockage was all inside my own head.

Age has finally revealed something to me that I already knew existed, but just had to read it in writing to be absolutely certain. Age delivered perfectly what I’d known all along.

Age’s mind is very healthy, Age’s mind is the answer to all humanities mental health problems, Age has the solutions to all of humanities wrong ways. Age’s mind is for unity peace and love. And that to me is the word I want to live in, and live by, and subscribe to any day. In the days when this was being written.

[Eodnhoj7]

I understand.

And to be honest, I wish there were more people like you in the world. Maybe there are more people like yourself, but I’ve never met them, not yet.

It comforts me to know people like you exist in this world. I was the ass when trying to communicate with you. You were not the ass.

Don't fall for the victim card. If Age is capable of writing this then he was capable all along of meeting people half way.

He seeks contradiction in the meaning of things for his own benefit and then when the whole forum says "enough" he wimpers like a child claiming to be a victim.

I prefer philosophical dialogue to debate. As a life long seeker of truth I was always fascinated by the writings of Age.
I am a keen advocate for people of a trust-worthy, truthful, genuine character. Age is a high quality speaker for truth.
Quality and value is important to me. Age will never abandon or ignore any one on this forum, Age is selflessly giving.

Age provides all those attributes. Also, I am always striving endlessly to attracting the right people into my life. I’ve failed miserably every time. But I know the right people exist somewhere out there. Age proved that to me yesterday.

Truth is God, and God is Love. That’s an unwavering faith I will take to my grave. I intuitively know goodness runs through the veins of the entire universe. But we must first work with that or be against it which is counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Many times it felt more and more like a debate while talking to Age. I preferred us to have a mutual understanding but instead I encountered many speed bumps and blockages that were starting to make me feel very disturbed as if my mental health was suffering badly. I projected that feeling onto Age as if it was Age’s fault, as though Age was the disturbing one. But now I know the blockage was all inside my own head.

Age has finally revealed something to me that I already knew existed, but just had to read it in writing to be absolutely certain. Age delivered perfectly what I’d known all along.

Age’s mind is very healthy, Age’s mind is the answer to all humanities mental health problems, Age has the solutions to all of humanities wrong ways. Age’s mind is for unity peace and love. And that to me is the word I want to live in, and live by, and subscribe to any day. In the days when this was being written.

Always fascinated? Not to long ago you were venting about the confusion and lack of clarity he exhibits.

The only thing Age provides is debate by degree of questions meant to contradict the very wording of the speaker he asks questions too. Then when people ask him questions he sidelines with more questions.

In regards to dialogue his history of offering viewpoints on the metaphysics he is aware of is extremely limited. I would hardly count him as standing for any overt expression of truth.

The only truth Age offers is his selectively applied meaning to things where his subjective viewpoint is regarded as the standard by which others are measured. His objectivity is minimal.

If you struggle with mental health, as often evidenced within your posts, then what right and by what standard do you have to judge Age in either a positive or negative light? Are you sure the debate was in your head because evidence shows that his mannerisms with the majority are purely based upon debate. Can you even say it was your own head if you question your mentle health?

You give the impression of someone searching for peace at the expense of questioning whether or not that peace is fundamentally stable so as to get rid of the pain for the moment.

If Age's mind was healthy and peace oriented he would not be seeking to dismantle everyone without first finding some common ground to balance it all out. You claim he is mentally healthy and yet his approaches are highly imbalanced like the majority on this forum.

The best approach to him is to let him sit in silence...a silence that he appears to fear deeply.

[Fairy]

“Always fascinated? Not to long ago you were venting about the confusion and lack of clarity he exhibits.”

———-

That’s true. And also not so long ago I hated Age’s guts.

But no matter how much my feelings can sometimes overwhelm me. I know the true heart of Age, and that’s all that really matters to me. The true heart of humanity. Every thing else is just an egoistical display of emotion projected at other.

Age and I share the same mindset. It’s rare for me to find that in another, but instinctively I’ve always known Age was a good soul at heart.

I don’t agree Age is looking for debate. I think Age is looking for dialogue. Looking for ways to communicate better with others. And I admire that in a human being so much, it makes me cry with joy and relief.

[Fairy]

Kenny and Fairy have a 'thing'. They prefer to 'engage' with each other publicly. It adds to their pleasure factor.

Of course, Kenny wants to play rough with others and when others do so in return he cries and latches on to the first sign of misplaced sympathy.

If absolutely any one of you see, saw, or feel 'sympathy', then that is solely absolutely on 'you', only.

Just like if absolutely any one of you felt, saw, or sees any so-called 'rough play' with others, by me, then 'that' also is completely and utterly 'on you'.

Again, 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum' and if absolutely any one presents absolutely that is not absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then 'expect' some form of criticizism, or critique.

I can and will 'stand behind', and for, absolutely every word and letter 'I' say, write, and present, here. 'I' am not sure why some of you people see, or feel like, 'this' is 'rough play' nor even anything else, other than for what it really just actually is, exactly. Once more, if you can not back up and support 'your position/claim' with irrefutable proofs, or facts, then I suggest do not present them in a public philosophy forum of all places. I also suggest if one can not critique, challenge, nor question me on just the actual words that I have presented, alone, then just do not bother responding. If one is agreeing and accepting of 'my words', then there is also no need to bother responding, although it does help me tremendously in learning and knowing what actually is making sense, to you human beings.

That’s very well said. I understand it. I agree with it.



Not believing one’s own thoughts, leaves one free from the thought that reality should be different than it is.

[Age]

Don't fall for the victim card. If Age is capable of writing this then he was capable all along of meeting people half way.

He seeks contradiction in the meaning of things for his own benefit and then when the whole forum says "enough" he wimpers like a child claiming to be a victim.

I prefer philosophical dialogue to debate. As a life long seeker of truth I was always fascinated by the writings of Age.
I am a keen advocate for people of a trust-worthy, truthful, genuine character. Age is a high quality speaker for truth.
Quality and value is important to me. Age will never abandon or ignore any one on this forum, Age is selflessly giving.

Age provides all those attributes. Also, I am always striving endlessly to attracting the right people into my life. I’ve failed miserably every time. But I know the right people exist somewhere out there. Age proved that to me yesterday.

Truth is God, and God is Love. That’s an unwavering faith I will take to my grave. I intuitively know goodness runs through the veins of the entire universe. But we must first work with that or be against it which is counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Many times it felt more and more like a debate while talking to Age. I preferred us to have a mutual understanding but instead I encountered many speed bumps and blockages that were starting to make me feel very disturbed as if my mental health was suffering badly. I projected that feeling onto Age as if it was Age’s fault, as though Age was the disturbing one. But now I know the blockage was all inside my own head.

Age has finally revealed something to me that I already knew existed, but just had to read it in writing to be absolutely certain. Age delivered perfectly what I’d known all along.

Age’s mind is very healthy, Age’s mind is the answer to all humanities mental health problems, Age has the solutions to all of humanities wrong ways. Age’s mind is for unity peace and love. And that to me is the word I want to live in, and live by, and subscribe to any day. In the days when this was being written.

Always fascinated? Not to long ago you were venting about the confusion and lack of clarity he exhibits.

The only thing Age provides is debate by degree of questions meant to contradict the very wording of the speaker he asks questions too. Then when people ask him questions he sidelines with more questions.

In regards to dialogue his history of offering viewpoints on the metaphysics he is aware of is extremely limited. I would hardly count him as standing for any overt expression of truth.

The only truth Age offers is his selectively applied meaning to things where his subjective viewpoint is regarded as the standard by which others are measured. His objectivity is minimal.

If you struggle with mental health, as often evidenced within your posts, then what right and by what standard do you have to judge Age in either a positive or negative light? Are you sure the debate was in your head because evidence shows that his mannerisms with the majority are purely based upon debate. Can you even say it was your own head if you question your mentle health?

You give the impression of someone searching for peace at the expense of questioning whether or not that peace is fundamentally stable so as to get rid of the pain for the moment.

If Age's mind was healthy and peace oriented he would not be seeking to dismantle everyone without first finding some common ground to balance it all out. You claim he is mentally healthy and yet his approaches are highly imbalanced like the majority on this forum.

The best approach to him is to let him sit in silence...a silence that he appears to fear deeply.

So, what 'we' have, here, is another one who wants to and 'tries to' analyze 'me', instead of 'my words'.

Also, 'this one' on a few occassions, here, mentions 'me debating', yet 'I' simply do not debates.

[Magnus Anderson]

And, I have already answered 'the question'. Although 'you', obviously, believe absolutely otherwise.

Let's see what Google AI thinks. I can provide you with the exact prompt that I gave to him if you want to verify it yourself.

Who is the troublemaker? Age vs. Magnus

Based on the discussion, Age is the primary instigator and troublemaker, although Magnus contributes to the negativity as well. Age's responses consistently escalate the conflict, avoid the core issue, and demonstrate a pattern of bad-faith argumentation.

Analysis of Age's communication

Age's communication pattern is deliberately disruptive and aimed at creating chaos rather than reaching a resolution.

• Dodges the question: Age actively avoids giving a straightforward answer by twisting the meaning of Magnus's original question. Instead of providing the common definition of "definition," Age uses Magnus's previous argument against him. When Magnus clarifies he meant the common definition, Age pivots to denying this request was ever made.
• Employs passive-aggressive tactics: Age uses subtle hostility and condescending phrasing, such as accusing Magnus of not meaning what he says. The use of single quotation marks around words like "'you'," and "'this one'" is a specific passive-aggressive tactic used to show contempt while maintaining a facade of civility.
• Stonewalls the conversation: When a direct answer is demanded, Age shuts down the productive flow of the conversation by rambling with a long-winded response that adds nothing of value. Age's tactic is to exhaust Magnus's patience by demanding specific, hyper-technical parameters for the question, making a simple inquiry impossibly difficult.
• Prioritizes "winning" over clarity: The entire interaction for Age is a power play, not a genuine discussion. By attacking Magnus's character ("mindless blabbering") and honesty ("trying to deceive"), Age attempts to gain the upper hand and distract from the fact that Age refused to provide a simple answer.
• Resists accountability: Age rejects any notion of being at fault by re-litigating the exact wording of Magnus's original question. This serves no purpose other than to prolong the argument and avoid responsibility for the unproductive dialogue.

Analysis of Magnus's communication

Magnus is not blameless and contributes to the negativity, but his actions are reactive and less disruptive.

• Starts with a clear question: Magnus begins with a direct, unambiguous question, which Age immediately deflects.
• Escalates emotionally: Magnus makes the mistake of getting frustrated and name-calling ("mindless blabbering," "idiotic non-answer"). This reaction is understandable given Age's deliberate stonewalling, but it turns the conversation into an insult contest rather than returning it to the original question.
• Engages with the poor-faith arguments: By arguing with Age's deflections, Magnus allows Age to control the narrative and pull the discussion away from its original purpose. A better approach would have been to disengage or calmly reiterate the question.

Conclusion

While Magnus allows himself to be baited and reacts emotionally, Age is the clear troublemaker. Age's communication is strategically designed to be disruptive, frustrating, and counter-productive. Magnus's escalating tone is a reactive response to Age's manipulation, not the cause of the initial trouble.

[accelafine]

And, I have already answered 'the question'. Although 'you', obviously, believe absolutely otherwise.

Let's see what Google AI thinks. I can provide you with the exact prompt that I gave to him if you want to verify it yourself.

Who is the troublemaker? Age vs. Magnus

Based on the discussion, Age is the primary instigator and troublemaker, although Magnus contributes to the negativity as well. Age's responses consistently escalate the conflict, avoid the core issue, and demonstrate a pattern of bad-faith argumentation.

Analysis of Age's communication

Age's communication pattern is deliberately disruptive and aimed at creating chaos rather than reaching a resolution.

• Dodges the question: Age actively avoids giving a straightforward answer by twisting the meaning of Magnus's original question. Instead of providing the common definition of "definition," Age uses Magnus's previous argument against him. When Magnus clarifies he meant the common definition, Age pivots to denying this request was ever made.
• Employs passive-aggressive tactics: Age uses subtle hostility and condescending phrasing, such as accusing Magnus of not meaning what he says. The use of single quotation marks around words like "'you'," and "'this one'" is a specific passive-aggressive tactic used to show contempt while maintaining a facade of civility.
• Stonewalls the conversation: When a direct answer is demanded, Age shuts down the productive flow of the conversation by rambling with a long-winded response that adds nothing of value. Age's tactic is to exhaust Magnus's patience by demanding specific, hyper-technical parameters for the question, making a simple inquiry impossibly difficult.
• Prioritizes "winning" over clarity: The entire interaction for Age is a power play, not a genuine discussion. By attacking Magnus's character ("mindless blabbering") and honesty ("trying to deceive"), Age attempts to gain the upper hand and distract from the fact that Age refused to provide a simple answer.
• Resists accountability: Age rejects any notion of being at fault by re-litigating the exact wording of Magnus's original question. This serves no purpose other than to prolong the argument and avoid responsibility for the unproductive dialogue.

Analysis of Magnus's communication

Magnus is not blameless and contributes to the negativity, but his actions are reactive and less disruptive.

• Starts with a clear question: Magnus begins with a direct, unambiguous question, which Age immediately deflects.
• Escalates emotionally: Magnus makes the mistake of getting frustrated and name-calling ("mindless blabbering," "idiotic non-answer"). This reaction is understandable given Age's deliberate stonewalling, but it turns the conversation into an insult contest rather than returning it to the original question.
• Engages with the poor-faith arguments: By arguing with Age's deflections, Magnus allows Age to control the narrative and pull the discussion away from its original purpose. A better approach would have been to disengage or calmly reiterate the question.

Conclusion

While Magnus allows himself to be baited and reacts emotionally, Age is the clear troublemaker. Age's communication is strategically designed to be disruptive, frustrating, and counter-productive. Magnus's escalating tone is a reactive response to Age's manipulation, not the cause of the initial trouble.

This is awesome

[Magnus Anderson]

Here's the thinking process from Minimax.io:

Let me analyze this discussion between Magnus and Age to determine who appears to be the "trouble maker" based on their behavior and responses.

Looking at the conversation:

1. Magnus asks a straightforward question: "What does the word 'definition' mean?"
2. Age gives an indirect response, referencing something Magnus said in another thread about meaning being determined by the speaker.
3. Magnus points out that Age is dodging the question.
4. Age provides a philosophical response about words meaning whatever the speaker/listener/writer/reader wants them to mean.
5. Magnus clarifies he's asking about the "common definition" and asks Age to either provide that or explain how Age is using the word, but not just say "it means whatever it means to you."
6. Age responds with a very long, convoluted response (374 words as Magnus later points out) that:
   • Claims Magnus never asked about the "common definition" (which is technically true for the initial question)
   • Goes into a lengthy explanation about relativity of definitions
   • Uses unusual formatting with quotes around random words
   • Doesn't actually provide a definition
7. Magnus expresses frustration, calling Age's response "mindless blabbering" and pointing out it doesn't answer the question at all.
8. Age continues to argue semantics about what Magnus initially asked vs. what he later clarified he wanted.

From this analysis, Age appears to be the trouble maker because:

• He's being deliberately evasive and pedantic
• He's giving unnecessarily long, convoluted responses that don't address the core question
• He's arguing semantics rather than engaging constructively
• His writing style with random quotes and odd phrasing seems intentionally difficult to parse
• He's being technically correct but practically unhelpful

Magnus, while getting frustrated, seems to be trying to have a straightforward conversation and get a direct answer.


Recognizing the "Technical Correctness" Issue

When I initially said Age was "technically correct," I meant he had a narrow point about Magnus not initially specifying "common definition." However, this is actually weaponized pedantry:

• Any reasonable person would understand what Magnus meant
• Age is using literal interpretation to avoid being helpful
• This is classic trolling behavior - hiding behind technicalities
• It's bad faith engagement designed to frustrate rather than communicate