Questions to Age

[Age]

I really do not care. I am not trying to be rude, just transparent.

Unity of understanding? I see. But do you? By what degree do you measure this unity without embracing the conflict that is its nature?

You love the feeling of love if you do not love people. Your absence of love for people only gives evidence to the shallowness of the love you incessantly preach.

I have seen countless people with their vision of truth be consumed and burnt away by time, all of which where so certain unto a vision that purely is a byproduct of imagining at its fundamental root. Countless martyrs to their own minds. All convinced of some experience they thought was universal. And that experience? Feeling good for a moment.

Your convictions are merely part of a vast sea of opposing viewpoints over the words "love" and "peace", words that have little to no meaning in this cycle other than spiritual self-indulgence.

Okay, you are welcome to your opinion. Who am I to deny you that.

But the thing is, your opinion is not how I perceive love. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree with each other’s perceptions on what true love actually means.

And yet you claim "to seek unity of understanding".

If some words, to you, have little or no meaning, as you believe is true, then is it even possible to obtain 'unity of understanding', in regards to them?

If yes, then how, exactly?

(Besides, of course, people just end up 'having to' agree with you that some words have little to no meaning.)

[Eodnhoj7]

And Age continues to ignore the thread where he can openly reveal the truth we "humans" do not know.

[Age]

The question is unanswerable without assuming one thus relegating by question as even more necessary.

Okay, then have you answered your own question, I can’t tell?

You see mutual understanding can't truly exist...what I provided proves it.

So, because 'this one' believes, absolutely, that there can never be 'mutual understanding', then it will have to do absolutely every thing in its power to never ever come to a 'mutual understanding' with absolutely any one. Which would also, obviously, include even "its" own 'self'.

[Age]

I am waiting for Age to reveal this deep truth 'humans' are unaware of in the thread I made specifically for him to do so.

Why did 'you' say and write, 'this deep truth 'thumans' are unaware of', in this thread.

Have I ever mentioned or said that there was 'some deep truth 'humans' are unaware of', anywhere?

If yes, then where, and when, and what was 'it' in regards to, exactly?

He wants to discuss? I will meet him there.

[Age]

And Age continues to ignore the thread where he can openly reveal the truth we "humans" do not know.

And, "eodnhoj7" continues to ignore the thread where I, already, openly revealed some Truths you, human beings, do not yet know, and/or some will just not accept and agree with.

[Eodnhoj7]

And the diversion continues....I made a whole thread for Age to post his metaphysical notions and yet it is avoided.

It is almost as if he is afraid to provide an explanation of the "truth" he claims.

It appears he does not know what he is talking about as he cannot "clarify" what he "means".

[Age]

And the diversion continues....I made a whole thread for Age to post his metaphysical notions and yet it is avoided.

It is almost as if he is afraid to provide an explanation of the "truth" he claims.

It appears he does not know what he is talking about as he cannot "clarify" what he "means".

LOL
LOL
LOL

How long has it been since 'this one' has, supposedly, started some 'new thread', til 'now', when I write 'these words'?

And, under what sort of delusion it is expected that when 'another' starts 'any thread' that I am under some sort of obligation to enter it and read it, let alone write within it. And, this is without even 'looking into' the absurdity that I have to 'drop every thing' that I am doing to go and write in some so-claimed 'made up whole thread'?

Also, I have asked 'this one' what it means when it uses the 'metaphysical' word, yet not a clarification to be seen. So, if it ever wants me to post so-called 'my metaphysical notions', then I, obviously, do not yet have any actual conception of what it is meaning nor referring to, exactly.

Now, I have already provided what I consider Truths, which no one could refute. So, why do you not just pick any of those, which you would like to discuss with me, only, write them down in 'your thread', and then just let 'us' begin?

[Magnus Anderson]

I'm not ready to accept that some people who otherwise don't look that terribly dumb could honestly call the above chit-chat "demonstration" a mathematical, undeniable, scientific proof. Even peacegirl and her father aren't that stupid.. right? That would be Age-level stupidity but Age is like mentally retarded.

Curious.

[Eodnhoj7]

And the diversion continues....I made a whole thread for Age to post his metaphysical notions and yet it is avoided.

It is almost as if he is afraid to provide an explanation of the "truth" he claims.

It appears he does not know what he is talking about as he cannot "clarify" what he "means".

LOL
LOL
LOL

How long has it been since 'this one' has, supposedly, started some 'new thread', til 'now', when I write 'these words'?

And, under what sort of delusion it is expected that when 'another' starts 'any thread' that I am under some sort of obligation to enter it and read it, let alone write within it. And, this is without even 'looking into' the absurdity that I have to 'drop every thing' that I am doing to go and write in some so-claimed 'made up whole thread'?

Also, I have asked 'this one' what it means when it uses the 'metaphysical' word, yet not a clarification to be seen. So, if it ever wants me to post so-called 'my metaphysical notions', then I, obviously, do not yet have any actual conception of what it is meaning nor referring to, exactly.

Now, I have already provided what I consider Truths, which no one could refute. So, why do you not just pick any of those, which you would like to discuss with me, only, write them down in 'your thread', and then just let 'us' begin?

There it goes.

So can you clarify what you mean by "truth"?

[Age]

And the diversion continues....I made a whole thread for Age to post his metaphysical notions and yet it is avoided.

It is almost as if he is afraid to provide an explanation of the "truth" he claims.

It appears he does not know what he is talking about as he cannot "clarify" what he "means".

LOL
LOL
LOL

How long has it been since 'this one' has, supposedly, started some 'new thread', til 'now', when I write 'these words'?

And, under what sort of delusion it is expected that when 'another' starts 'any thread' that I am under some sort of obligation to enter it and read it, let alone write within it. And, this is without even 'looking into' the absurdity that I have to 'drop every thing' that I am doing to go and write in some so-claimed 'made up whole thread'?

Also, I have asked 'this one' what it means when it uses the 'metaphysical' word, yet not a clarification to be seen. So, if it ever wants me to post so-called 'my metaphysical notions', then I, obviously, do not yet have any actual conception of what it is meaning nor referring to, exactly.

Now, I have already provided what I consider Truths, which no one could refute. So, why do you not just pick any of those, which you would like to discuss with me, only, write them down in 'your thread', and then just let 'us' begin?

There it goes.

So can you clarify what you mean by "truth"?

Yes.

[Eodnhoj7]

LOL
LOL
LOL

How long has it been since 'this one' has, supposedly, started some 'new thread', til 'now', when I write 'these words'?

And, under what sort of delusion it is expected that when 'another' starts 'any thread' that I am under some sort of obligation to enter it and read it, let alone write within it. And, this is without even 'looking into' the absurdity that I have to 'drop every thing' that I am doing to go and write in some so-claimed 'made up whole thread'?

Also, I have asked 'this one' what it means when it uses the 'metaphysical' word, yet not a clarification to be seen. So, if it ever wants me to post so-called 'my metaphysical notions', then I, obviously, do not yet have any actual conception of what it is meaning nor referring to, exactly.

Now, I have already provided what I consider Truths, which no one could refute. So, why do you not just pick any of those, which you would like to discuss with me, only, write them down in 'your thread', and then just let 'us' begin?

There it goes.

So can you clarify what you mean by "truth"?

Yes.

Good then you agree with me on everything.

[Age]

There it goes.

So can you clarify what you mean by "truth"?

Yes.

Good then you agree with me on everything.

I have absolutely no idea how my answer could, let alone supposedly does, logically follow with that 'I' agree with 'you' on absolutely every thing, but if 'this' is what you 'see' and want to believe is true, then 'this' is okay with me.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes.

Good then you agree with me on everything.

I have absolutely no idea how my answer could, let alone supposedly does, logically follow with that 'I' agree with 'you' on absolutely every thing, but if 'this' is what you 'see' and want to believe is true, then 'this' is okay with me.

I am glad you agree further that you do not know what you are talking about.

[Age]

Good then you agree with me on everything.

I have absolutely no idea how my answer could, let alone supposedly does, logically follow with that 'I' agree with 'you' on absolutely every thing, but if 'this' is what you 'see' and want to believe is true, then 'this' is okay with me.

I am glad you agree further that you do not know what you are talking about.

LOL Once again 'this one' has absolutely misconstrued what I said, wrote, and meant, here.

you, obviously, have made another completely False claim, and you are, once again, just 'trying' your hardest to get away with it.

you, obviously, do not want to acknowledge, let alone admit, how utterly absurd and Wrong your claim was, but, here, 'it' is for all to look at, notice, and see.

[Magnus Anderson]

From another thread.

From now on, all of the comments pertaining to his misbehavior will be posted here. I want to keep my threads as clean as possible.

And, here, 'it' is. The prime example of why 'these human beings', back when this was being written, took so, so long to 'catch up', HERE.

Calling other people "these humans beings" implies that Age is superior to them. That would be a claim of his own superiority, and indirectly, a claim of other people's inferiority. A kind of personal attack, one can say. Certainly, not a friendly, not a cooperative, not a loving tone. A combative language.

'they' actually 'believed', not just 'thought', that absolutely every agrees on the exact same 'meanings' for words.

This is an exaggeration. The claim that I made is that everyone agrees on the meaning of the word "reality". I never said everyone agrees on the meaning of every word.

And, laughingly 'this one' even used the 'reality' word, for, the example.

He uses the word "laughingly". That would be an example of mockery.

"This one" is a condescending reference to me.

And, then, laughingly, 'this one' even 'tries to' use 'the excuse' that there is absolutely 'no need', at all, to define words, in the days when this was being written.

The same exaggeration from earlier repeated.

He accuses me of using an excuse. That's a comment directed at my motives, so it's a kind of ad hominem.

All in all, he's employing exaggeration, ad hominem attacks, mockery, belittlement, psychologisms, etc. He's very clearly not allowing the other side to have a differing opinion. And he's also not entertaining the possibility that he's wrong.