Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 1:40 am

Yes, it is an excuse.

If you really want to say it is an excuse for your failings and inabilities, then by all means keep on using excuses. you are, obviously, absolute, free to do so.

Nope, it's about not spending dozens of hours on your inabilities.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:30 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:09 am ...and how do you know all that?

Wait and see. It'll all come out.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:30 am

What you're saying...

No, Cathy Newman, I'm not "saying" any words you're trying to put in my mouth.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:06 am

If you really want to say it is an excuse for your failings and inabilities, then by all means keep on using excuses. you are, obviously, absolute, free to do so.

Nope, it's about not spending dozens of hours on your inabilities.

So, 'now', you are NOT absolutely free to use excuses.




Anyway, let 'us' go back to 'the beginning', and 'start again'.

me:
But, 'who' is 'the loser', here, exactly?

Obviously the "united states of america" is not and can not win, so it is 'losing' and 'the loser', here. Thus, why "donald trump" wants to just 'give up' and 'hand over' "ukraine" to "russia".

The "united states of america" can not beat "russia", here.

you:
And just how do you know that?

me:
If you would like for me to answer and clarify this clarifying question, here, then you will have to be far more specific in relation to what the 'that' word is in relation to, exactly.

you:
You quoted the specifics and skipped them.

me:
So, there are at least three things that you want me to inform you of how I know of, right?

you:
No.

me:
And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, in providing clarity and just clarifying things.

you:
I'm not required to cater to your autistic needs whenever you completely fail to understand ordinary human communication.

me:
Of course you are not.

Now, I made three obviously different claims, and "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know some 'thing'. However, "atla" clarified that it does NOT want me to inform it of how I know these three things, BUT does want me to inform it of how I know some 'thing', but "atla" is, unfortunately, completely incapable of just informing me of what 'that thing' is, exactly.

So, is there ANY one ELSE in this forum who knows what 'it' is, exactly, that "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know 'that', then would you please kindly clarify here, for me.

"atla" is, after all, under the impression that it is 'me', ONLY, who is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND its so-claimed 'ordinary human communication', here.

If absolutely ANY one CAN UNDERSTAND "atla's" so-called 'ordinary human communication', then could you please pass 'it' on. That way you WILL SHOW and PROVE that "atla" IS RIGHT, and CORRECT, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:49 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:30 am
Wait and see. It'll all come out.


No, Cathy Newman, I'm not "saying" any words you're trying to put in my mouth.

For it to all come out there has to be prior data indicating the possiblity that it may all eventually reveal itself.

Yep.

You're not going to believe it now, but you will later. Wait until it all comes out.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:06 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:06 am

If you really want to say it is an excuse for your failings and inabilities, then by all means keep on using excuses. you are, obviously, absolute, free to do so.

Nope, it's about not spending dozens of hours on your inabilities.

So, 'now', you are NOT absolutely free to use excuses.




Anyway, let 'us' go back to 'the beginning', and 'start again'.

me:
But, 'who' is 'the loser', here, exactly?

Obviously the "united states of america" is not and can not win, so it is 'losing' and 'the loser', here. Thus, why "donald trump" wants to just 'give up' and 'hand over' "ukraine" to "russia".

The "united states of america" can not beat "russia", here.

you:
And just how do you know that?

me:
If you would like for me to answer and clarify this clarifying question, here, then you will have to be far more specific in relation to what the 'that' word is in relation to, exactly.

you:
You quoted the specifics and skipped them.

me:
So, there are at least three things that you want me to inform you of how I know of, right?

you:
No.

me:
And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, in providing clarity and just clarifying things.

you:
I'm not required to cater to your autistic needs whenever you completely fail to understand ordinary human communication.

me:
Of course you are not.

Now, I made three obviously different claims, and "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know some 'thing'. However, "atla" clarified that it does NOT want me to inform it of how I know these three things, BUT does want me to inform it of how I know some 'thing', but "atla" is, unfortunately, completely incapable of just informing me of what 'that thing' is, exactly.

So, is there ANY one ELSE in this forum who knows what 'it' is, exactly, that "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know 'that', then would you please kindly clarify here, for me.

"atla" is, after all, under the impression that it is 'me', ONLY, who is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND its so-claimed 'ordinary human communication', here.

If absolutely ANY one CAN UNDERSTAND "atla's" so-called 'ordinary human communication', then could you please pass 'it' on. That way you WILL SHOW and PROVE that "atla" IS RIGHT, and CORRECT, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:49 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:30 am
Wait and see. It'll all come out.


No, Cathy Newman, I'm not "saying" any words you're trying to put in my mouth.

For it to all come out there has to be prior data indicating the possiblity that it may all eventually reveal itself.

Yep.

You're not going to believe it now, but you will later. Wait until it all comes out.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:06 am
Nope, it's about not spending dozens of hours on your inabilities.

So, 'now', you are NOT absolutely free to use excuses.




Anyway, let 'us' go back to 'the beginning', and 'start again'.

me:
But, 'who' is 'the loser', here, exactly?

Obviously the "united states of america" is not and can not win, so it is 'losing' and 'the loser', here. Thus, why "donald trump" wants to just 'give up' and 'hand over' "ukraine" to "russia".

The "united states of america" can not beat "russia", here.

you:
And just how do you know that?

me:
If you would like for me to answer and clarify this clarifying question, here, then you will have to be far more specific in relation to what the 'that' word is in relation to, exactly.

you:
You quoted the specifics and skipped them.

me:
So, there are at least three things that you want me to inform you of how I know of, right?

you:
No.

me:
And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, in providing clarity and just clarifying things.

you:
I'm not required to cater to your autistic needs whenever you completely fail to understand ordinary human communication.

me:
Of course you are not.

Now, I made three obviously different claims, and "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know some 'thing'. However, "atla" clarified that it does NOT want me to inform it of how I know these three things, BUT does want me to inform it of how I know some 'thing', but "atla" is, unfortunately, completely incapable of just informing me of what 'that thing' is, exactly.

So, is there ANY one ELSE in this forum who knows what 'it' is, exactly, that "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know 'that', then would you please kindly clarify here, for me.

"atla" is, after all, under the impression that it is 'me', ONLY, who is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND its so-claimed 'ordinary human communication', here.

If absolutely ANY one CAN UNDERSTAND "atla's" so-called 'ordinary human communication', then could you please pass 'it' on. That way you WILL SHOW and PROVE that "atla" IS RIGHT, and CORRECT, here.

You didn't even make "three obviously different claims".

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:02 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:06 am
Nope, it's about not spending dozens of hours on your inabilities.

So, 'now', you are NOT absolutely free to use excuses.




Anyway, let 'us' go back to 'the beginning', and 'start again'.

me:
But, 'who' is 'the loser', here, exactly?

Obviously the "united states of america" is not and can not win, so it is 'losing' and 'the loser', here. Thus, why "donald trump" wants to just 'give up' and 'hand over' "ukraine" to "russia".

The "united states of america" can not beat "russia", here.

you:
And just how do you know that?

me:
If you would like for me to answer and clarify this clarifying question, here, then you will have to be far more specific in relation to what the 'that' word is in relation to, exactly.

you:
You quoted the specifics and skipped them.

me:
So, there are at least three things that you want me to inform you of how I know of, right?

you:
No.

me:
And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, in providing clarity and just clarifying things.

you:
I'm not required to cater to your autistic needs whenever you completely fail to understand ordinary human communication.

me:
Of course you are not.

Now, I made three obviously different claims, and "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know some 'thing'. However, "atla" clarified that it does NOT want me to inform it of how I know these three things, BUT does want me to inform it of how I know some 'thing', but "atla" is, unfortunately, completely incapable of just informing me of what 'that thing' is, exactly.

So, is there ANY one ELSE in this forum who knows what 'it' is, exactly, that "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know 'that', then would you please kindly clarify here, for me.

"atla" is, after all, under the impression that it is 'me', ONLY, who is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND its so-claimed 'ordinary human communication', here.

If absolutely ANY one CAN UNDERSTAND "atla's" so-called 'ordinary human communication', then could you please pass 'it' on. That way you WILL SHOW and PROVE that "atla" IS RIGHT, and CORRECT, here.

Also, not winning doesn't necessarily mean losing either.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:12 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:54 am

So, 'now', you are NOT absolutely free to use excuses.




Anyway, let 'us' go back to 'the beginning', and 'start again'.

me:
But, 'who' is 'the loser', here, exactly?

Obviously the "united states of america" is not and can not win, so it is 'losing' and 'the loser', here. Thus, why "donald trump" wants to just 'give up' and 'hand over' "ukraine" to "russia".

The "united states of america" can not beat "russia", here.

you:
And just how do you know that?

me:
If you would like for me to answer and clarify this clarifying question, here, then you will have to be far more specific in relation to what the 'that' word is in relation to, exactly.

you:
You quoted the specifics and skipped them.

me:
So, there are at least three things that you want me to inform you of how I know of, right?

you:
No.

me:
And, once again, this one fails, absolutely, in providing clarity and just clarifying things.

you:
I'm not required to cater to your autistic needs whenever you completely fail to understand ordinary human communication.

me:
Of course you are not.

Now, I made three obviously different claims, and "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know some 'thing'. However, "atla" clarified that it does NOT want me to inform it of how I know these three things, BUT does want me to inform it of how I know some 'thing', but "atla" is, unfortunately, completely incapable of just informing me of what 'that thing' is, exactly.

So, is there ANY one ELSE in this forum who knows what 'it' is, exactly, that "atla" wants me to inform it of how I know 'that', then would you please kindly clarify here, for me.

"atla" is, after all, under the impression that it is 'me', ONLY, who is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND its so-claimed 'ordinary human communication', here.

If absolutely ANY one CAN UNDERSTAND "atla's" so-called 'ordinary human communication', then could you please pass 'it' on. That way you WILL SHOW and PROVE that "atla" IS RIGHT, and CORRECT, here.

You didn't even make "three obviously different claims".

It might be quite surprising, to some, that you did not see and notice three obvious different claims when it is 'you' who claims that it is 'me' who 'completely fails to understand ordinary human communication', here.

Now, how many claims did I make, to you, exactly?

And, what was it, or them, exactly?

And then, be CLEAR of what 'that' is, exactly, which you want me to inform you of how I know 'that'.

So far NO one ELSE has be able to CLARIFY, FOR you.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:12 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 7:59 am
You didn't even make "three obviously different claims".

It might be quite surprising, to some, that you did not see and notice three obvious different claims when it is 'you' who claims that it is 'me' who 'completely fails to understand ordinary human communication', here.

Now, how many claims did I make, to you, exactly?

And, what was it, or them, exactly?

And then, be CLEAR of what 'that' is, exactly, which you want me to inform you of how I know 'that'.

So far NO one ELSE has be able to CLARIFY, FOR you.

Just answer the question. Or are you ready to admit that you fucked up again. Talking about things with certainty that you know too little about, because you're a habitual liar.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:13 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:26 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:12 am

It might be quite surprising, to some, that you did not see and notice three obvious different claims when it is 'you' who claims that it is 'me' who 'completely fails to understand ordinary human communication', here.

Now, how many claims did I make, to you, exactly?

And, what was it, or them, exactly?

And then, be CLEAR of what 'that' is, exactly, which you want me to inform you of how I know 'that'.

So far NO one ELSE has be able to CLARIFY, FOR you.

Just answer the question. Or are you ready to admit that you fucked up again. Talking about things with certainty that you know too little about, because you're a habitual liar.

Once again, 'this one' JUST ENDS UP TO RESORTING TO THE, 'you are a LIAR', CLAIM.

AGAIN, 'we' START OUT with 'me' just ASKING 'you' CLARIFY some thing. 'you', UNFORTUNATELY, do NOT CLARIFY, and just END UP RESORTING TO what 'you' REALLY ONLY know, here, which is PUTTING OUT the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that, 'I AM LYING, AGAIN'.

LOL 'you' NOT CLARIFYING NEVER MAKES NOR MEANS that is 'i' who is LYING, here.

Now, "atla" if you REALLY WANT 'me' TO ANSWER your QUESTION, 'And just how do you know that?', then 'you' WILL HAVE TO INFORM 'us' readers, here, what the 'that' word IS IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY.

So far, absolutely NO one ELSE HAS BEEN ABLE TO HELP you OUT, here. Which may well be BECAUSE they, ALSO, do NOT YET KNOW what your 'that' word is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Therefore, UNTIL 'you' CLARIFY, I am UNABLE TO KNOW what you are REFERRING TO.

But, maybe you "yourself" do NOT even KNOW what the 'that' word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. Which EXPLAINS WHY you do NOT JUST CLARIFY, here.

Oh, and by the way, what STILL STANDS, here, is that I CAN and WILL back up AND support EVERY thing I have SAID and CLAIMED, here.

So, ONCE MORE, if absolutely ANY one is READY TO and/or WOULD LIKE TO challenge and/or question 'me' OVER ANY thing that I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, here, then PLEASE DO.

I LOOK FORWARD TO the DISCUSSION.

Oh yeah, and again, what does 'not winning' ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:13 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:26 am

Just answer the question. Or are you ready to admit that you fucked up again. Talking about things with certainty that you know too little about, because you're a habitual liar.

Once again, 'this one' JUST ENDS UP TO RESORTING TO THE, 'you are a LIAR', CLAIM.

AGAIN, 'we' START OUT with 'me' just ASKING 'you' CLARIFY some thing. 'you', UNFORTUNATELY, do NOT CLARIFY, and just END UP RESORTING TO what 'you' REALLY ONLY know, here, which is PUTTING OUT the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that, 'I AM LYING, AGAIN'.

LOL 'you' NOT CLARIFYING NEVER MAKES NOR MEANS that is 'i' who is LYING, here.

Now, "atla" if you REALLY WANT 'me' TO ANSWER your QUESTION, 'And just how do you know that?', then 'you' WILL HAVE TO INFORM 'us' readers, here, what the 'that' word IS IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY.

So far, absolutely NO one ELSE HAS BEEN ABLE TO HELP you OUT, here. Which may well be BECAUSE they, ALSO, do NOT YET KNOW what your 'that' word is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Therefore, UNTIL 'you' CLARIFY, I am UNABLE TO KNOW what you are REFERRING TO.

But, maybe you "yourself" do NOT even KNOW what the 'that' word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. Which EXPLAINS WHY you do NOT JUST CLARIFY, here.

Oh, and by the way, what STILL STANDS, here, is that I CAN and WILL back up AND support EVERY thing I have SAID and CLAIMED, here.

So, ONCE MORE, if absolutely ANY one is READY TO and/or WOULD LIKE TO challenge and/or question 'me' OVER ANY thing that I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, here, then PLEASE DO.

I LOOK FORWARD TO the DISCUSSION.

Oh yeah, and again, what does 'not winning' ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?

A wall of shouting instead of just answering the question. Age proves to be a liar again, not very surprising after the last 100 times Age has proven it.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:09 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:13 am

Once again, 'this one' JUST ENDS UP TO RESORTING TO THE, 'you are a LIAR', CLAIM.

AGAIN, 'we' START OUT with 'me' just ASKING 'you' CLARIFY some thing. 'you', UNFORTUNATELY, do NOT CLARIFY, and just END UP RESORTING TO what 'you' REALLY ONLY know, here, which is PUTTING OUT the COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that, 'I AM LYING, AGAIN'.

LOL 'you' NOT CLARIFYING NEVER MAKES NOR MEANS that is 'i' who is LYING, here.

Now, "atla" if you REALLY WANT 'me' TO ANSWER your QUESTION, 'And just how do you know that?', then 'you' WILL HAVE TO INFORM 'us' readers, here, what the 'that' word IS IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY.

So far, absolutely NO one ELSE HAS BEEN ABLE TO HELP you OUT, here. Which may well be BECAUSE they, ALSO, do NOT YET KNOW what your 'that' word is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Therefore, UNTIL 'you' CLARIFY, I am UNABLE TO KNOW what you are REFERRING TO.

But, maybe you "yourself" do NOT even KNOW what the 'that' word IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. Which EXPLAINS WHY you do NOT JUST CLARIFY, here.

Oh, and by the way, what STILL STANDS, here, is that I CAN and WILL back up AND support EVERY thing I have SAID and CLAIMED, here.

So, ONCE MORE, if absolutely ANY one is READY TO and/or WOULD LIKE TO challenge and/or question 'me' OVER ANY thing that I have ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, here, then PLEASE DO.

I LOOK FORWARD TO the DISCUSSION.

Oh yeah, and again, what does 'not winning' ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?

A wall of shouting instead of just answering the question. Age proves to be a liar again, not very surprising after the last 100 times Age has proven it.

LOL

AGAIN,

1. NOT one single word of shouting.

2. I am, STILL, TRYING TO GET you TO CLARIFY what 'it' is, EXACTLY, what you want me to ANSWER.

3. SEEKING OUT CLARITY, FROM you, BEFORE I KNOW what TO ANSWER, EXACTLY, is NOT being A 'liar'.

4. you have CLAIMED, an unknown amount of times, that I have LIED. Now. NOT ONCE have you backed up and supported this CLAIM of yours, even AFTER I HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKED you TO.

5. Now, this time, you are CLAIMING that I have PROVEN TO BE A LIAR, at least 100 times. So, this gives you, at least 100 chances, to link 'us' to WHERE you BELIEVE I HAVE PROVEN TO have LIED.

Will you DO this, this time?

We WILL have TO WAIT, TO SEE. But, going on your past experiences absolutely NOTHING will be FORTH COMING.


LOL ALSO, you CLAIM that 'not winning doesn't necessarily mean losing either', so I just ASK you TO CLARIFY, 'what does 'not winning' ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?'

Yet you are NOT EVEN ABLE to just CLARIFY this.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 12:08 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 11:09 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:31 am
A wall of shouting instead of just answering the question. Age proves to be a liar again, not very surprising after the last 100 times Age has proven it.

LOL

AGAIN,

1. NOT one single word of shouting.

2. I am, STILL, TRYING TO GET you TO CLARIFY what 'it' is, EXACTLY, what you want me to ANSWER.

3. SEEKING OUT CLARITY, FROM you, BEFORE I KNOW what TO ANSWER, EXACTLY, is NOT being A 'liar'.

4. you have CLAIMED, an unknown amount of times, that I have LIED. Now. NOT ONCE have you backed up and supported this CLAIM of yours, even AFTER I HAVE SPECIFICALLY ASKED you TO.

5. Now, this time, you are CLAIMING that I have PROVEN TO BE A LIAR, at least 100 times. So, this gives you, at least 100 chances, to link 'us' to WHERE you BELIEVE I HAVE PROVEN TO have LIED.

Will you DO this, this time?

We WILL have TO WAIT, TO SEE. But, going on your past experiences absolutely NOTHING will be FORTH COMING.


LOL ALSO, you CLAIMED 'not winning doesn't necessarily mean losing either', so I just ASK you TO CLARIFY, 'what does 'not winning' ACTUALLY MEAN, EXACTLY?'

Yet you are NOT EVEN ABLE to just CLARIFY this.

Again a wall of shouting instead of just answering the question.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 12:08 pm And the retard now wants me to define the expression that he/she brought up.