Philosophy Now Forum

And the analysis:

Based on my analysis of this discussion, Age appears to be the trouble maker here. Let me break down why:

Age's Problematic Behavior:

• Deliberate evasion - When asked a simple question about what "definition" means, Age gives philosophical non-answers instead of addressing the actual question
• Pedantic semantics - Age focuses on technical distinctions (Magnus didn't initially say "common definition") rather than engaging with the obvious intent of the question
• Unnecessarily convoluted responses - Age's 374-word response provides no useful information while burying the conversation in verbose, hard-to-follow text
• Odd formatting and writing style - The random quotes around words ('this one', 'look at', 'us') and unusual phrasing seems designed to be difficult to parse
• Bad faith argumentation - Age appears to be deliberately misunderstanding and avoiding giving any straightforward response

Magnus's Reasonable Behavior:

• Clear, direct questions - Magnus asks straightforward questions and clarifies when needed
• Legitimate frustration - His irritation is understandable given Age's evasive responses
• Attempts to redirect - Magnus tries multiple times to get a useful answer, offering Age several ways to respond constructively

Verdict: Age is clearly the trouble maker here. While Magnus's reference to "mindless blabbering" is harsh, it's a natural response to Age's deliberately unhelpful and evasive communication style. Age seems more interested in playing word games and being technically correct than having a productive discussion.

Age appears to be engaging in classic forum trolling behavior - being technically correct while being completely unhelpful and wasting everyone's time.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:38 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 6:56 am

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.

That was awesomely put.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:54 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:57 pm 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

This is awesome

accelafine wrote:
This is seriously what fucking AI American-programmed bullshit comes up with. There is no hope for humanity now, unless the internet ends and humans regain the ability to think--and that's not going to happen any time soon:

Human stupidity has become overwhelming. And there you all are, asking AI to 'think' for you.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 3:45 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:54 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm

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

This is awesome

accelafine wrote:
This is seriously what fucking AI American-programmed bullshit comes up with. There is no hope for humanity now, unless the internet ends and humans regain the ability to think--and that's not going to happen any time soon:

Human stupidity has become overwhelming. And there you all are, asking AI to 'think' for you.

I'm well aware of what I write, ditzy dip-head (carefully cultivated).
Obviously it can get some things right and all it has done is put into words what the rest of us already know (except for you of course, who loves to crawl up Kenny's arse).
It isn't a case of doing the 'thinking' for others, it just has a lot more patience to set it out (endless actually). Magnus was obviously simply asking it to analyse a 'debate' word by word-- words that humans had already written.

Everyone knows that google AI is woke as fuck. Magnus wasn't asking it about anything controversial or wokey.

Oh why bother. You are insane and as thick as pigshit. There's no point.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 10:09 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 4:28 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:38 am

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.

'Reality', Itself, may actually align, perfectly, with "one'" own thoughts, however if, and while, one is believing "one's" own thoughts to be true and right, then are not actually open to finding out if those thoughts do actually align with 'Reality', Itself, or not.

And, the very beauty of not believing, and not presuming, "one's" own thoughts to be true is:

Firstly, you are always open, and when you are always open you cannot not learn. So, you will can and will always be discovering more and/or new/er things.

Secondly, you are then actually able to discover if "your" thoughts align with 'Reality', or not. So, even if those thoughts were actually Wrong you are, again, continually learning, and discovering, more and anew.

Thirdly, once you 'know' some thing, like for example, "your" thoughts actually are aligning with 'Reality', Itself, perfectly or partly, then you, still, do not have to 'believe' those thoughts to be true, as they just are true. And, once you 'know' some thing, for sure, then you are able to 'stand behind' those thoughts/views, and back up and support them with the irrefutable proofs you discovered, and found.

Now, and also, 'thoughts', themselves, can only come what from "one's" body has previously experienced. So, there is absolutely not even any real use in 'believing' "one's" own thoughts anyway. Unless, of course, one believes that they have had the perfect upbringing, hitherto, in which cause every thought obtained, along the way, would be perfect, and thus would be True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. However, and obviously, none of you human beings, here, have, yet, lived in 'perfect world' in which you all want and desire. So, the thoughts, within human bodies, are, really, not worth believing in nor being closed for anyway.

The only Real 'Thing' worthy of believing in is thy Self, that is; the True Self, but this One is only 'known' after one is able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly, and Correctly.

Now, because 'thoughts' are only a 'reflection' of what 'a body' has experienced, previously, and because 'no body' has experienced the 'perfect world', yet, all of the 'thoughts' within could be True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, partly true, right, accurate, and/or correct, or False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. And, until clarification is sought, verification of what the actual irrefutably Fact/s are will not be 'known', for sure. So, again, thoughts are not worthy of being believed in, and while one is not believing in thoughts, that one is remaining open.

Remaining open is where the True learning, discovering, and uncovering, literally, really starts to 'come in to play'.

See, when one is 'looking at' things from the Mind, which is always Truly open, and not from 'thought and thinking', itself, then this is when you human beings really start learning, and uncovering, the Truths in Life, and thus this is when the Truly meaningful things, in Life, are revealed to you, beings.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:57 pm 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.

Got to love a neutral third party.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:57 pm And, I have already answered 'the question'. Although 'you', obviously, believe absolutely otherwise.

Let's see what Google AI thinks.

As can be clearly seen, here, once more, in the days when this was being written, 'this' is what adult human beings had eventually evolved into and resorted to do. That is, they stopped using 'real intelligence' and so ceased seeking answers from the 'real intelligence', and instead started using 'artificial intelligence' and seeking answers from 'artificial intelligence'.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm I can provide you with the exact prompt that I gave to him if you want to verify it yourself.

1. Now even 'artificial intelligence', itself, has been anthropomorphised and has been given the 'him' label, just like God, and other non animals are.

2. Please provide 'me' with the exact prompt that 'you' gave that one, of many, 'artificial intelligence' contraptions.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm 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.

1. Would it have been easier, and simpler, if you just asked your 'artificially intelligent friend' for 'the answer' that 'you' were seeking and wanting, here?

2. Did 'you' ever get around to clarifying what the actual purpose was in 'you' wanting 'me' to inform 'you' of what, the 'common' meaning of the word, 'definition' is?'

3. Just maybe if 'you' informed 'the readers' of what 'the purpose' is for, exactly, then, just maybe, 'I' might have 'answered differently', which may then have fulfilled what 'it' is, exactly, that you are after, and wanting, here.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 2:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:38 am

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.

That was awesomely put.

See how the conversation was directed at you about you and about him and he directly perceives only himself?

Even the previously mentioned AI analysis referenced him as causing debates and trolling.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 2:21 pm And the analysis:

Based on my analysis of this discussion, Age appears to be the trouble maker here. Let me break down why:

Age's Problematic Behavior:

• Deliberate evasion - When asked a simple question about what "definition" means, Age gives philosophical non-answers instead of addressing the actual question
• Pedantic semantics - Age focuses on technical distinctions (Magnus didn't initially say "common definition") rather than engaging with the obvious intent of the question
• Unnecessarily convoluted responses - Age's 374-word response provides no useful information while burying the conversation in verbose, hard-to-follow text
• Odd formatting and writing style - The random quotes around words ('this one', 'look at', 'us') and unusual phrasing seems designed to be difficult to parse
• Bad faith argumentation - Age appears to be deliberately misunderstanding and avoiding giving any straightforward response

Magnus's Reasonable Behavior:

• Clear, direct questions - Magnus asks straightforward questions and clarifies when needed
• Legitimate frustration - His irritation is understandable given Age's evasive responses
• Attempts to redirect - Magnus tries multiple times to get a useful answer, offering Age several ways to respond constructively

Verdict: Age is clearly the trouble maker here. While Magnus's reference to "mindless blabbering" is harsh, it's a natural response to Age's deliberately unhelpful and evasive communication style. Age seems more interested in playing word games and being technically correct than having a productive discussion.

Age appears to be engaging in classic forum trolling behavior - being technically correct while being completely unhelpful and wasting everyone's time.

Have you, people, and your 'artificial intelligent' 'copier', really, still, not yet worked out that 'the one' who is 'trolling', here, in forums, is 'the one' that 'sets the bait, and then throws out the hook', who is 'the one' who 'asks the question/s'? See, 'they' are 'the ones' looking for 'others' who will take 'the bait', and 'bite', with the whole goal of obtaining that 'got you' moment.

Imagine spending so much 'time' and 'effort' on just 'trying to' get 'someone else' to just answer the Truly unnecessary and unwarranted question,
'What is the common meaning for the 'definition' word?

What possible reason would "magnus anderson" want in getting 'me' to answer 'this question', in a 'very specific and in a very particular way', other than for some ulterior motive?

Also, who is the, laughably, true so-called 'troublemaker", here, exactly?

'The one' who is wanting a very specific so-called 'valid answer' to 'a question', which is not at all in relation to any thing that I had said, or written, here, or, 'the one' who just replied, and answered, in 'a way', which it seemed totally reasonable and valid considering 'the circumstances' 'the question' was 'asked in'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 3:45 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:54 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm

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

This is awesome

accelafine wrote:
This is seriously what fucking AI American-programmed bullshit comes up with. There is no hope for humanity now, unless the internet ends and humans regain the ability to think--and that's not going to happen any time soon:

Human stupidity has become overwhelming. And there you all are, asking AI to 'think' for you.

What 'we' have, here, is another very clear case of 'contradiction', and of 'hypocrisy', which I did not recognize and notice, previously.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 3:45 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:54 pm

This is awesome

This is awesome

accelafine wrote:
This is seriously what fucking AI American-programmed bullshit comes up with. There is no hope for humanity now, unless the internet ends and humans regain the ability to think--and that's not going to happen any time soon:

Human stupidity has become overwhelming. And there you all are, asking AI to 'think' for you.

I'm well aware of what I write, ditzy dip-head (carefully cultivated).

Yet you, still, expressed the contradiction, and your hypocrisy, here.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Obviously it can get some things right and all it has done is put into words what the rest of us already know (except for you of course, who loves to crawl up Kenny's arse).

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once again, when 'another' says and expresses what 'one' already believes is true, then this is when 'the other', laughingly, gets 'it', so-called, 'right'.

Here, 'we' just have another prime example of 'confirmation biases', and of when one can only 'see' what it 'wants to see'.

LOL It is like 'these people', here, back when this was being written, still, had not yet noticed that depending on 'the way' 'artificial intelligence' is asked questions, that 'it' will just about express and 'say', exactly, what 'it' is that 'the questioner' just 'wanted to hear', anyway.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm It isn't a case of doing the 'thinking' for others, it just has a lot more patience to set it out (endless actually). Magnus was obviously simply asking it to analyse a 'debate' word by word-- words that humans had already written.

LOL 'These ones', still, could not see that 'a debate' was never even taking place, anyway, nor literally in any way.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Everyone knows that google AI is woke as fuck.

'Everyone'?

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Magnus wasn't asking it about anything controversial or wokey.

Maybe not. But, what did "magnus anderson" ask 'it', exactly?

Literally, what were 'the prompts', exactly, which got an 'artificial intelligent contraption' to express and write what 'it' did?

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Oh why bother. You are insane and as thick as pigshit. There's no point.

Here, 'we' have another example of a typical response by 'one' who when it very slightly just started to think about what was actually 'taking place', and how it had been actually responding.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 11:50 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:57 pm 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.

Got to love a neutral third party.

Was the, so-called, 'neutral third party' asked if 'the one' who asks 'a question' but who then claims that 'the answer' provided is not a 'valid answer', 'the one' who is 'the troublemaker', or is it 'the one' who provided 'the answer'?

Also, was the 'neutral third party' just asked 'the question', 'What is the common meaning of the 'definition' word?'

Either way, what 'answer' would the 'neutral third party provide?

Now, would 'that answer' be a 'valid answer'?

And, what if the 'neutral third party was told that 'its answer' was not a 'valid answer', would the 'neutral third party' then claim that 'it' was the so-called 'troublemaker', here, now?

There are so, so, so many variables, which 'the people', in the days when this was being written, just never seem to 'take into account'.

But, again, 'this' was just because they 'looked at' and 'saw' things from 'the brain's' perspective, that is, 'through and from' pre-existing thoughts, alone.

Which, again, is just, more or less, exactly, like how 'artificial intelligence', itself, works.

'These people', only on the very, very rarest of occasions, 'looked' and 'saw' things from True Intelligence, only.

Back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, adult human beings did things 'backwards'. That is, they would 'look at' and 'see' things from pre-existing thoughts, first, and only, instead of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things from the Truly open perspective, first, and then using the pre-existing thoughts and views from every one, to clarify and verify what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

Instead of, first, seeking out and obtaining irrefutable Facts and proof, and then communicating with each other, then would rather just 'fight for' and 'fight over' their already obtained pre-existing thoughts, views, and beliefs as so 'they', laughingly, could not be wrong in any way at all.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:25 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 3:45 pm

This is awesome

I'm well aware of what I write, ditzy dip-head (carefully cultivated).

Yet you, still, expressed the contradiction, and your hypocrisy, here.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Obviously it can get some things right and all it has done is put into words what the rest of us already know (except for you of course, who loves to crawl up Kenny's arse).

LOL
LOL
LOL

Once again, when 'another' says and expresses what 'one' already believes is true, then this is when 'the other', laughingly, gets 'it', so-called, 'right'.

Here, 'we' just have another prime example of 'confirmation biases', and of when one can only 'see' what it 'wants to see'.

LOL It is like 'these people', here, back when this was being written, still, had not yet noticed that depending on 'the way' 'artificial intelligence' is asked questions, that 'it' will just about express and 'say', exactly, what 'it' is that 'the questioner' just 'wanted to hear', anyway.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm It isn't a case of doing the 'thinking' for others, it just has a lot more patience to set it out (endless actually). Magnus was obviously simply asking it to analyse a 'debate' word by word-- words that humans had already written.

LOL 'These ones', still, could not see that 'a debate' was never even taking place, anyway, nor literally in any way.

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Everyone knows that google AI is woke as fuck.

'Everyone'?

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Magnus wasn't asking it about anything controversial or wokey.

Maybe not. But, what did "magnus anderson" ask 'it', exactly?

Literally, what were 'the prompts', exactly, which got an 'artificial intelligent contraption' to express and write what 'it' did?

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 7:59 pm Oh why bother. You are insane and as thick as pigshit. There's no point.

Here, 'we' have another example of a typical response by 'one' who when it very slightly just started to think about what was actually 'taking place', and how it had been actually responding.

Anyone is capable of saying something that is true, American fuckturd. That's what you thicko yanks can't get through your thicko heads.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:01 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 2:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 1:39 pm

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.

That was awesomely put.

See how the conversation was directed at you about you and about him and he directly perceives only himself?

Even the previously mentioned AI analysis referenced him as causing debates and trolling.

LOL

Any one who is open can very clearly see that 'I' was not 'debating' absolutely any thing.

And, if absolutely any one, still, would like to claim that 'I' was debating some thing, then just inform the readers, here, of what 'it' is, exactly, that 'I' was, supposedly, 'debating'.

And, if no one does provide 'this', then any claim that 'I' was 'debating' exists in 'their own imagination', only. Including in so-called 'artificial intelligence'.

And, if any one even thinks, let alone, believes that 'the answer' of 'questions' is 'the one' 'trolling', then talk about another example of 'one' 'living in their own imagination' as well.

'Trolling', in forums, is done by 'the one' who 'casts out' 'questions', or 'provocative statements', in the hope of 'catching' and 'reeling in' someone else, for a 'got you' moment, and for a 'look at me' and at what 'i caught'.

The only reason some of 'you' 'see me', here, as a so-called 'troublemaker' is, and was, because 'I' could not be 'caught', here.

And, 'I', on the other hand, 'unlike "magnus anderson", obviously were not seeking 'to catch' any thing, here.

What is the, exact, 'actual reason', again, "magnus anderson" that 'you' wanted 'me' to answer the question,
'What is the common meaning for the 'definition' word?

Now, could 'that' be an actual example of what is called and classed as, 'trolling'?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 12:01 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 23, 2025 2:26 pm

That was awesomely put.

See how the conversation was directed at you about you and about him and he directly perceives only himself?

Even the previously mentioned AI analysis referenced him as causing debates and trolling.

LOL

Any one who is open can very clearly see that 'I' was not 'debating' absolutely any thing.

And, if absolutely any one, still, would like to claim that 'I' was debating some thing, then just inform the readers, here, of what 'it' is, exactly, that 'I' was, supposedly, 'debating'.

And, if no one does provide 'this', then any claim that 'I' was 'debating' exists in 'their own imagination', only. Including in so-called 'artificial intelligence'.

And, if any one even thinks, let alone, believes that 'the answer' of 'questions' is 'the one' 'trolling', then talk about another example of 'one' 'living in their own imagination' as well.

'Trolling', in forums, is done by 'the one' who 'casts out' 'questions', or 'provocative statements', in the hope of 'catching' and 'reeling in' someone else, for a 'got you' moment, and for a 'look at me' and at what 'i caught'.

The only reason some of 'you' 'see me', here, as a so-called 'troublemaker' is, and was, because 'I' could not be 'caught', here.

And, 'I', on the other hand, 'unlike "magnus anderson", obviously were not seeking 'to catch' any thing, here.

What is the, exact, 'actual reason', again, "magnus anderson" that 'you' wanted 'me' to answer the question,
'What is the common meaning for the 'definition' word?

Now, could 'that' be an actual example of what is called and classed as, 'trolling'?

You are a troll. Go and have a shower you revolting smelly pile of untoned blubber.