Probably a silly question.

[Age]

Well you wouldn't would you?

Of course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.

You are the one writing it, but I am looking at it from the perspective of a reader, who, I pressume, you want it to be understood by.

That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.

And, as 'you', "harbal", have also proved True here, once again, it is 'assuming' and 'assumptions' that let 'you', people, down.

See, if you did not 'presume' that what I was saying and writing here was to be 'understood', by 'you', readers here, in the day and age when this was being written, then you would not have made the mistake of 'assuming' what the writer/speakers intention is, and, if you were Truly 'open' and 'curious', then you would have sought 'clarification'.

See, it is through 'clarification', itself, where if not all, just about each and every bit of 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding' can be cleared up or resolved.

Presuming, assuming, and believing prevents and stops 'clarification' from occurring, and it is through 'clarification' and 'clarity' where 'understanding' lives or lays, and prevails.

I was just giving you (uninvited) feedback, it's certainly not for me to tell you how to write.

I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.

I was just SHOWING how you, and I, could have written absolutely and irrefutably accurately and/or Factually.

See, I just more or less copied your words, which made my statement and claim Factually Wrong as well, and through 'clarification' or through OPEN and Honest answers to my clarifying questions, then it could have been SEEN how by just adding two more words BOTH of our sentence would have been irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

Now I realise what's going on.

You are clearly nuts.

'you' are absolutely free to assume absolutely any thing 'you' like, "harbal", and to conclude absolutely any thing at all that you like, but until 'you' clarify, with 'me', what I Truly meant, then 'your' conclusion here could be based on absolutely nothing of any substance, at all.

You made a claim, which was obviously False, Wrong, and Incorrect. I then made the same claim, using the same words, from my perspective. Now, although both claims might be true (little 't') from each of our individual perspectives, they were certainly not true, at all, from the objective Truth's (capital 'T') perspective.

Which, by the way, can be proven irrefutably True.

So, if that makes me "clearly" 'nuts', then so be it. (But then is 'that' even the actual Truth of things, itself? Or, just more of how you individually see things only?)

[Age]

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

I'm sorry, my mind wandered...can you repeat that?

Yes.

[Age]

In my opinion, there are moments in life when you are more likely to learn, and other moments when you want to express the ideas that have matured.

However, I am noticing that new ideas never arise in me unless prompted by comparison with others.

Just seek to Truly change, for the better, and not just for your sake but more so for other's sake, while at the same time being absolutely always totally Honest in what you do wrong, while also being absolutely curious, and again Honest, then you will notice a remarkable continuous change where new ideas, or answers, are unfolding, exponentially, and almost immediately.

New ideas that may even have little to do with the ongoing discussion. [/quote]

When one is openly looking at, and are Honestly considering, other's views, then this is when 'new ideas' can arise.

What is indispensable for the comparison to be productive is good faith.

Guided by a passion for truth.
Which prompts me to support what I believe is true.

But if what you believe is true could not be in agreement absolutely every one, then that is just your, individual, truth, which is not what the actual irrefutable Truth is exactly.

A 'truth' that 'could not' be in agreement with and be accepted by every one are just individual or subjective truths. Which are relatively absolutely useless, within a philosophy forum, or within a philosophical discussion, from the definition of 'philosophy' that I provided here.

Whereas,

A 'truth' that 'could' be in agreement with and be accepted by absolutely every one is an actual Truth, which could not be refuted by absolutely any one. That 'truth' is then just a Fact, which would be obviously irrefutable, forever more.

So, if you are just 'supporting' 'that', what you believe is true, but 'it' could not be in agreement and acceptance by absolutely every one, anyway, then why even have this belief in the first place, let alone holding this belief to be true?

And, if 'it' is just some 'thing', which every one could agree with and accept, then 'it' would just be a Fact, which no one could, nor is even going to be able to refute anyway.

That may turn out to be false tomorrow, but as long as it is true for me, I am there.

So, you are on the, "the main objective for you is to stick doggedly to your guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of you being wrong about something, even when it is obvious to us that you are," side, correct?

Either way, what you said just here Truly seems like a complete waste, 'of time and energy', as some would say.

If what you believe or assume, today, is true, but which could be false, tomorrow, then why stick to holding 'that' belief or assumption, and 'try to' fight/argue for 'it'?

[Age]

Of course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.


That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.

And, as 'you', "harbal", have also proved True here, once again, it is 'assuming' and 'assumptions' that let 'you', people, down.

See, if you did not 'presume' that what I was saying and writing here was to be 'understood', by 'you', readers here, in the day and age when this was being written, then you would not have made the mistake of 'assuming' what the writer/speakers intention is, and, if you were Truly 'open' and 'curious', then you would have sought 'clarification'.

See, it is through 'clarification', itself, where if not all, just about each and every bit of 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding' can be cleared up or resolved.

Presuming, assuming, and believing prevents and stops 'clarification' from occurring, and it is through 'clarification' and 'clarity' where 'understanding' lives or lays, and prevails.


I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.

I was just SHOWING how you, and I, could have written absolutely and irrefutably accurately and/or Factually.

See, I just more or less copied your words, which made my statement and claim Factually Wrong as well, and through 'clarification' or through OPEN and Honest answers to my clarifying questions, then it could have been SEEN how by just adding two more words BOTH of our sentence would have been irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

Now I realise what's going on.

You are clearly nuts.

Maybe so, but it’s just as likely that he is on the spectrum.

Just so you are aware, as others are already, I was the one who first informed them that I AM 'on the spectrum'.

And it is because of 'this' that I look at and see most 'things' very differently, then 'you', adult human beings, do.

(Also, and by the way, another reason why I highlight and/or emphasize some words in capital letters, (so that those words were being, literally, more easily noticed, and Truly recognized, listened to, and heard is because it is absolutely far simpler, easier, and much more efficient for me to just hold down one button with one finger, while continually pressing the other keys with the other seven fingers and not having to stop at all, than it is to stop writing, hold the mouse down, slide the mouse across to highlight a word, then move up the screen to the underline button, let go of the mouse, then click the mouse again on the underline button, and then start writing again. So, it would really be appreciated if, all of you posters here, who find it, supposedly, "too much work" to just read some capitalized words, and stay concentrated on the actual message being conveyed instead, inform me that reading underlined words is "so much easier" for you. Thank you. Otherwise, I might resort back to the much quicker, simpler, easier, and more efficient way to write, and talk here.)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Now I realise what's going on.

You are clearly nuts.

Maybe so, but it’s just as likely that he is on the spectrum.

Just so you are aware, as others are already, I was the one who first informed them that I AM 'on the spectrum'.

And it is because of 'this' that I look at and see most 'things' very differently, then 'you', adult human beings, do.

(Also, and by the way, another reason why I highlight and/or emphasize some words in capital letters, (so that those words were being, literally, more easily noticed, and Truly recognized, listened to, and heard is because it is absolutely far simpler, easier, and much more efficient for me to just hold down one button with one finger, while continually pressing the other keys with the other seven fingers and not having to stop at all, than it is to stop writing, hold the mouse down, slide the mouse across to highlight a word, then move up the screen to the underline button, let go of the mouse, then click the mouse again on the underline button, and then start writing again. So, it would really be appreciated if, all of you posters here, who find it, supposedly, "too much work" to just read some capitalized words, and stay concentrated on the actual message being conveyed instead, inform me that reading underlined words is "so much easier" for you. Thank you. Otherwise, I might resort back to the much quicker, simpler, easier, and more efficient way to write, and talk here.)

What 'spectrum'? Isn't everyone on 'the spectrum' these days?

[Age]

Could what you have 'observed' be wrong or incorrect in ANY way whatsoever?

Only if you are intentionally derailing every conversation.

I express the views/thoughts from within 'this' body, just like the views/thoughts within 'that' body are being expressed here.

If what is 'seen' from those views, within 'that' body, is 'derailment' of every conversation, by 'me', then that is fair enough. But, if that assumption is true, right, and/or correct or not, then that is another matter.

Now, I just asked a very simple and straightforward clarifying question above here, in reply to what 'you' had previously written, and I just wait, patiently, for clarity and Truth to come forward.

Now, what I am 'intentionally' doing, and creating, here I have already explained. However, what my clarifying question, to you, was in reply to, was your claim that you have not observed absolutely any learning/progress whatsoever at all, (whatever that actually means), from 'me', in years', to which I was just curios, and so asked you, Could what you have 'observed' be wrong or incorrect in ANY way whatsoever?

In other words;

Could I be learning/progressing, and you are not recognizing 'it' here?

Could, 'what you observe', be a 'misconstrued', 'misunderstood', 'mistaken', and/or just plain 'missed' perspective, of what I have actually learned and/or progressed on or with?

Or,

Could I just be learning/progressing, but not expressively showing 'it' here, in this forum?

For all you know I could have learned a lot of 'things' here, from 'you', posters, here, but I have just not "raised my hand', to tell 'you', this. Exactly like it is very rare to 'observe' and 'see' students in a classroom 'raise their hands' to inform the teacher of what they have learnt.

Also, it could be said that I have not observed nor seen absolutely any learning/progress from 'you', "skepdick", in not just years but ever in this forum. But this certainly does not mean that I am right and correct in any way whatsover at all here.

For all I know 'you' could have learned some 'thing' from 'me', for an example, but I have just not 'observe' 'you' express it nor show it.

For all I know you may have done 'this', but I just did not read that part, did read that part but just did not recognize that part, and so completely and utterly missed 'that part'. Which I am sure 'you', "yourself", have done also.

And this is not even taking into consideration all of those other times when what was actually meant was completely misunderstood.

Are your actions intentional; or unintentional?

One does NOT have control over 'actions'. One only has control over 'behaviors'.

See, 'actions' are the result of, or just a 're-action', of a previous 'action', which 'you', human beings, do not have 'control over'.

However, how 'you' 'behave' or 'misbehave' is a whole other story and, literally, a different 'series of events'.

So, it could be 'argued', that all 'actions' are 'intended', but only because of pre-existing conditions.

What I am 'doing', and are actually 'achieving' here, is very intentional. However, some of the assumptions and beliefs that are being made, from my intended words, were unintentional. Even though it is only after I see just how Wrong and Incorrect some of the assumptions being made are, I then 'see' how from the unconscious or sub-consciously level, I had actually made "others" make some of those Truly absurd and ridiculous assumptions. But they were not intentionally made, at the conscious level, when I first made and expressed those words.

As for 'derailing' every conversation, 'derailing' is a very relative a term, as I have not 'derailed' absolutely any conversation here, from my perspective, let alone every conversation, as you claim here. I just take conversations where I want them to go. Is this not what 'you' and "others" 'try to' do as well?

Oh, and by the way, if, and when, these threads are read again, what can be clearly seen is how much I have started out responding to what was actually written, and who it is, and by how much, the conversations have 'deflected'. For example, if we were to look back and re-read this thread, who has spent the most time on the actual opening post, who has deflected away the most from that opening post the most, and who has not even attempted to respond to the opening post at all.

[Age]

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

How ironic that your solution to the problem is the very source of the problem itself.

1. What is 'my', supposed, 'solution', from 'your' perspective?

And,

2. What is 'the', supposed, 'problem', from 'your' perspective?

If you're truly here to learn something, you should learn this: your communication style is almost universally disliked, it communicates more aggression than you probably intend, and it's contrary to your supposed goals.

Firstly, I am not here to 'learn' what 'you' think nor believe I 'should' learn.

Secondly, I am not even here to 'learn' in the way that 'you', adult human beings, envision what the words 'learn' or 'learning' even mean, nor even refer to, exactly.

Thirdly, I know my communication style is disliked by 'you', posters, here. As I keep informing 'you', I write the way I do, purposely. My target audience is not 'you', posters, here. Never was, and maybe never will be. Is this yet understood, finally?

Fourthly, I have never intended absolutely any aggression. There is never any aggression, ever. And, any assumption otherwise is of your own making, completely. One of 'my messages', which I want to get across to my target audience, which I want to show them with the actual and irrefutable proof provided, is that these are just words on a screen, and absolutely any meaning or intention within them or behind them can come from the reader "them" 'self'. AND, that the reader can always be absolutely or partly Wrong if they never attempt to clarify, with the actual writer/speaker, what the actual intention is/was within or behind those words, and can always be absolutely or partly Wrong in what they assume is the meaning behind those words. ONLY the speaker/writer KNOWS these 'things'. And, absolutely any attempt by any one else, or in other words, any other third party, will always only be an assumption, which could always be fully, or partly, False, Wrong, or Incorrect. See, what happens is if the speaker/writer is not around any more, or at all, to ask for 'clarification', then what they REALLY 'intended' and 'meant' will NEVER become KNOWN. And, what I want to SHOW and REVEAL, with PROOF, to my target audience, is that 'you', adult human beings, in the day and age when this was being written did NOT even attempt to seek and ask for CLARIFICATION, even though the writer/speak is, literally, here before 'you', and even continually asking to be INTERROGATED, for CLARIFICATION.

Even 'your' accusation of, "your writings communicate more aggression than you probably intend", which is so far fetched, so absurdly False, Wrong, AND Incorrect that just making that accussation shows and reveals 'stupidity' to the extreme, and this 'stupidity' is based solely on 'you' never even attempting to clarify what I am actually meaning and intending BEFORE you go and make the accussation, itself. Your 'accusation' was based solely on 'your OWN assumption, ONLY, and absolutely nothing else.

1. I have never even 'intended' any aggression, AT ALL, so it is actually an impossibility that my writings could communicate 'more aggression', than I, supposedly 'intended'. So, if you had CLARIFIED, FIRST, then you would not have made this obviously, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect accusation.

2. Even though I have CLEARLY EXPRESSED that I just express SOME words with capital letters, just to highlight them so they are more obvious, this is still taken as being a form of shouting, or aggression, by some here. So, if some 'thing' is CLEARLY EXPRESSED, and thus ALREADY KNOWN, then do not IGNORE 'this' and keep assuming what you do. Otherwise, you will keep making the SAME mistakes, and therefore keep claiming things that are obviously False, Wrong, or Incorrect. There are even some posters here who when they see me use the letters 'LOL' together are assuming that I am laughing. Even though I continually suggest that it is MUCH BETTER to seek and gain CLARITY, FIRST, BEFORE absolutely ANY assumption or assuming is made.

3. Just so 'you' become FULLY AWARE, 'I' am USING 'you', posters, here to SHOW, to my targeted audience, the actual PROOF of HOW making assumptions, FIRST, leads to jumping to False, Wrong, or Incorrect conclusions, which if become BELIEFS, leads to creating a Truly SILLY 'world', as the one 'you', posters, WERE living IN, back when this WAS being written.

Fifthy, what are my, supposed, goals, from 'your' perspective, which I am, supposedly, being 'contrary' to?

If you can, you should try changing it up. You'll find better engagement all around.

I am getting and receiving the EXACT 'engagement' I am WANTING, and SEEKING, from 'you', posters, here.

Again, I am USING 'you', to SHOW, with PROOF, how the CLAIMS I have been and will make, are actually IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct.

I'd actually be interested in continuing our conversation in the other thread, if I didn't have to read those words in the way you write them.

When you say, "those words in the way you write them", are you referring to just the use of capital letters, or to something else, (as well?)?

Because if you are Truly interested in continuing 'our conversation' in another thread, then I will not just 'try to' 'change' the way I write the words I do, I will actually do it. But i will have to apologize in advance if I 'slip up', now and then in that thread, as this would not be on purpose.

And, if you are still very keen and interested, then you will just have to inform me of how you want me to change my writing style, exactly, and inform me of what conversation are you talking about and referring to, exactly?

Slightly related question: when you read words on a screen, do you hear the words in your mind, or do you have some other experience of reading?

1. I do not 'have a mind'. So, the phrase or term, 'your mind', is a complete 'misnomer', well to me anyway.

2. When I read words on a screen, I "hear" (if that is the right word) the words, 'silently', within this body,

3. Why do you ask?

[Age]

As I said before now, he’s probably on the spectrum.

We are all on the spectrum. That's why it's called a spectrum, not categories.

VERY, VERY True "skepdick".

The particular behavior he is incapable of is adjusting his own behavior based on other people's feedback.

But in 'what world' am 'I' here, to please any of 'you'?

And this is without even taking into consideration that a lot of the reason why 'you', adult human beings, have been quarreling, disagreeing, arguing, and even fighting and killing each other, over the exact same 'things', for thousands upon thousands of years, is because of the way you behave, or more correctly have been misbehaving, and here you are wanting 'me' to ADJUST and CHANGE to 'your ways'. But, NO THANKS.

I do NOT have to CHANGE, nor ADJUST, 'my behavior', from the feedback I get from 'those', who Truly do NOT YET KNOW how to get along with ALL "others", in a Truly PEACEFUL and HARMONIOUS WAY.

Do 'you', posters, here keep FORGETTING what my ACTUAL PURPOSE is here?

He is incapable of learning.

ONCE AGAIN, what 'you', posters, want to 'teach' me, is NOT necessarily what I WANT to learn, AT ALL, from 'you',. Which, by the way, MOST OF is just the 'stuff', which I have ALEADY PREVIOUS learned, and do NOT want to COPY, nor FOLLOW, anyway.

Also, for 'you' to CLAIM that 'another' " is INCAPABLE of 'learning' ", could be what some refer to as; 'The pot calling the kettle black'.

'We' do NOT 'have to be' OPEN to learn EVERY nor ANY thing "another" WANTS 'us' to learn.

'We' also COULD 'have' learnt 'it', BEFORE, and so do NOT 'need' to relearn 'it' from "another".

'We' might also NOT WANT to just COPY and FOLLOW what "others" do, and thus NOT WANT to 'learn' what "others" do, because 'we' can SEE the Wrong in what 'they' do.

'We' may also NOT WANT to 'learn' what "another" WANTS to 'learn' because ALREADY KNOW what is actually irrefutably True AND Right, and 'it' is NOT what "they" WANT to 'teach' 'us' and WANT 'us' to 'learn'.

Even if he is here with the intention to learn.

Do 'you' have absolutely any idea or clue AT ALL as to what 'it' is that I want to learn, "skepdick"?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

[Age]

"when you read words on a screen, do you hear the words in your mind, or do you have some other experience of reading?"

what an excellent question. i hear an inaudible voice with no sound that reads the words to me as i look at them.

i hear the sound of myself without a voice, iow. i know, makes no sense, but honest phenomenology permits us no other way to describe it.

It makes perfect sense, well to 'me' anyway.

Although I had not thought of this question posed here before, and also at first sight thought, 'What an excellent question', I have asked that question in other ways.

I have questioned others,

Is that 'voice within', in a male's or a female's voice? And, to people who speak more than one language I have asked,

Which language do you 'think' in?

the experience produces a very peculiar kind of qualia it's difficult to talk about clearly. Ergo, the nonsensical way I described it.

1. The way you described this very Natural phenomena is NOT nonsensical AT ALL, again, well to me anyway.

2. Once human beings evolve to LISTEN to 'that voice', or more particular to ALWAYS be TAKING NOTICE of what 'thoughts' and even MORE SPECIFIC to TAKE NOTICE of what 'words' arise ('there', or 'in there'), then that 'one' is MORE ABLE to, litterally, look AT "them" 'self' MORE, and STOP looking AT "others" and STOP 'judging' 'them' AS MUCH.

3. When one can get to the stage of;

a) STEPPING BACK,
b) TAKING NOTICE of the 'thoughts' and 'words' arising.
c) QUESTIONING 'them'.
d) ANSWERING Honestly.

Then, and ONLY THEN, one, quickly, LEARNS HOW and WHY 'you' are, the way 'you' are, which translates DIRECTLY to absolutely EVERY one ELSE, which then leads to actually being ABLE TO:

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

Or, in other words, when one KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS "them" 'self' FULLY, ONLY THEN they can UNDERSTAND ALL "others" and it is ONLY with True and FULLY 'understanding' that one could Truly FORGIVE ANY and ALL "others", for it becomes ALREADY KNOWN WHY they NOT, (yet), KNOW what they do.

[Skepdick]

Do 'you' have absolutely any idea or clue AT ALL as to what 'it' is that I want to learn, "skepdick"?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

Irrespective of what "it" is that you are trying to learn, you will actually learn it much faster after you learn to communicate with other people.

Which you are incapable of learning.

[Age]

As I said before now, he’s probably on the spectrum.

We are all on the spectrum. That's why it's called a spectrum, not categories.

Right, of course. I meant on the spectrum in the vernacular sense, I.e. autism or somewhere near it.

Are 'you' NOT on the 'autism spectrum'?

Thank you for correcting me.

When "skepdick" said and wrote; "We are ALL on the spectrum", what did you think or envision the 'spectrum' word was referring to, exactly?

[Age]

"when you read words on a screen, do you hear the words in your mind, or do you have some other experience of reading?"

what an excellent question. i hear an inaudible voice with no sound that reads the words to me as i look at them.

i hear the sound of myself without a voice, iow. i know, makes no sense, but honest phenomenology permits us no other way to describe it. the experience produces a very peculiar kind of qualia it's difficult to talk about clearly. Ergo, the nonsensical way I described it.

I can relate to that. I'm not sure how explicit or clear my head voice is.

The reason I ask is because it's possible that Age doesn't read with that verbal-mental side. I know speed readers don't.

As I have clearly expressed previously, I am VERY SLOW, and would say I am the SLOWEST reader in this forum, and probably one of the SLOWEST readers in the whole community. So, I very much read with that 'verbal-mental side', if that refers to "hearing" a voice within.

But I also know some who can read that fast that there would be no way to "hear" many if any of the words, within, let all of them.

See, one of the issues with 'thoughts', which are, lterally, the 'thing' that has control over human mis/behavior, is that 'thoughts' are so quick that they can be very hard to recognize and keep a track of, let alone be able to stop them and/or question them.

If ANY one is Truly interested in SEEING how True this REALLY IS, then just try and write EACH and EVERY thought that arises within those heads.

Oh, and by the way, what I find Truly 'annoying' with those so-called "speed readers" is some can read, and understand MORE and much better than me, even when they have read the WHOLE book in the exact same time I am still have not finished the FIRST pasge yet.

So for me, and I think most other people, when you see a word in all caps, that voice in my head is reading it to me slightly louder and much slower. To emphasize it, right?

To 'emphasize' was 'the intention'. To 'hinder' in ANY way was NOT 'the intention'.

See, what I think will be found is on first reading, a lot of what I write can APPEAR as farcical and/or pure nonsense. But WHEN I finally get around to expressing how to LOOK AT And SEE 'things' from, and in, a Truly IRREFUTABLE WAY, THEN, what I have written here is REREAD, then WHY I ACTUALLY capitalized THOSE words, for emphasize, will become MUCH CLEARER.

Also, I will make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HERE-NOW, that WHEN a word is 'read' and/or 'heard' 'slightly louder', then this, in absolutely NO WAY is 'aggression' NOR 'yelling'. It is just a SIGN that 'that word' I would like to have MORE NOTICE taken of.

And doing that every now and then, maybe one word per paragraph, that's totally cool. Some words are worth emphasizing, no problem with that at all.

Maybe the reason WHY it takes me SO LONG to 'read', and 'understand' them FULLY, is because I am NOT 'hearing' the written words as well as you can obviously do it.

See, when I 'read' I do NOT 'hear', NOR 'notice' the 'subtleties' of 'slowing down' NOR being 'louder'. I just LOOK AT EACH and EVERY word more so from the actual meaning that 'it' has, than from HOW 'it' is being PRESENTED.

Exactly like with 'typoglycemia'. I just LOOK AT the words, and it does NOT matter how they are PRESENTED, and just read them while adding the definitions/meanings of the word, along with the word. Which, now explains more so WHY I am SO VERY SLOW at 'reading' and 'understanding'.

But when you're doing it EVERY FIVE FUCKING WORDS, it starts to feel like... well, like exactly what it would feel like if someone were speaking loudly and slowly to you in real life. You're being spoken down to, treated like a naughty child, at best.

I am just trying to get 'my' actual intended message across, and NOT the one that "others" ARE ASSUMING, or are being ASSUMED.

Now, how one, EXACTLY 'feels like', when one is being spoken to in a 'loud' and 'slow' voice, will always be depended upon that one's past experiences.

And, if one 'feels like' that are being spoken 'down to', or 'treated like a naughty child', then what that one has previously experienced, in their life, can be CLEARLY SEEN, and KNOWN.

When you SLAM the DOOR it DISTURBS everyone else in the HOUSE.

But these are just words, on a screen. There is NO actual noise involved, and the ONLY one they affect are the one's reading them.

Thsee are jsut wdros on a secren, but tehy can sitll be vrey esilay raed and udreoontsd wthiuot the lretrtes ncerseeclay bnieg in the rghit oedrr, creocrt?

If yes, then does writing this was make you 'feel like' some 'thing'?

WHY when some wrods are written in capital letters, this, supposedly, has some unintended affect on you, but when the letters are just about all the same, this does not affect you the same way?

Does the 'reading voice' change from say, 'one of yours', to say 'another's', like a parent or guardian?

If Age doesn't have that auditory experience as he's reading, maybe he just literally can't relate.

I can certainly 'understand', especially now 'this' is being discussed here, and I do 'relate' to the 'hearing of words', I, however, just do not 'relate' in the exact same way, as I just do not read the exact same way you do. That is; I am so slow that if I went any slower with a word I would be near stopped. And, the capitalized words do not sound louder neither. So, although I can not 'relate' in the truest sense, I certainly do fully understand, 'now' that this is being brought up, talked about and discussed.

There was a point where I thought it was because Age didn't understand that, but there's some evidence that he understands but just doesn't care.

Was that 'evidence' where I wrote, 'I do not care'?

See, capitalized words had never been talked about nor discussed before, and so how, exactly, it has been affecting 'you', readers and posters, here, had never been fully expressed. All I have seen, and heard, is; "it is annoying".

Which would be like me telling one of you; 'The way you write is annoying', and then expecting you to just change the way you write.

Until I am absolutely clear, then why would you want to just change,, especially when you have had a very good reason for writing the way you did.

I have had a very specific reason for writing that way I did, so I was not going to just change 'it' for 'some annoyance' that I really could not 'see', nor even 'relate to'.

There's an off chance that reading some of this might bring him a new layer of understanding here, maybe he would care if he really understood, I'm not sure.

I have found that it takes three 'things' before one will be more inclined to change their ways, or behaviors'. They are;

Being informed of how the "other" 'feels'.

Being informed of what 'it' is, exactly, why they feel that way. And,

Being informed of why they feel that way.

I have been continually informed of how people 'feel', and about what I do that makes them 'feel' that way', " The way you write is annoying' ", I have seen and heard enough times. Which has given me no real reason to change. But, now that you have explained why you 'feel' the way you do, when I write the way I do, this gives me a far more substantial reason to want to change, the way I write.

I wonder now if "others" noticed that I somewhat explained previously that I also 'feel' annoyed, when to emphasize words I have to now highlight them, and then click the underline button, and that just how slow and tedious this is?

Also, and by the way, why do quite a few of you talk with each other, about me, as though I am not even here?

Is it because you think or know that I am "autistic"? Or,

Because you think or believe that I am just "stupid"? Or,

Because you think or believe that I could not understand? Or,

For some other reason?

Reading this did bring me a new layer of understanding. This is because when 'you', people, just have peaceful discussions about the way 'you' each look at, see, experience, and 'feel' about 'things', then new ways of 'looking', 'oneself' can be obtained, and thus new or more 'things' can then be 'seen'.

Which is a very different way of 'discussion', which can and does take place within 'philosophy forums' where people just 'try to' argue or fight for the position, which they hold to be true.

[Flannel Jesus]

Because if you are Truly interested in continuing 'our conversation' in another thread, then I will not just 'try to' 'change' the way I write the words I do, I will actually do it. But i will have to apologize in advance if I 'slip up', now and then in that thread, as this would not be on purpose.

If you replace all instances of ALL CAPS with "putting things in quotes" or underlining them, then you haven't changed the way you write in a meaningful way. You only get so many words you can emphasize in a paragraph before you're talking down to people. It doesn't matter if they're in caps, in quotes, underlined. There's no reason to write 'you' in quotes like that. 'try' to 'change', none of that. It has the same effect. You're trying to emphasize too many words, and you're talking down.

If you want to try to change, limit yourself to at most one emphasized word or phrase per paragraph. For example, I could emphasis JUST THIS and nothing else, and it wouldn't be perceived as over agressive, just a way to emphasize the thing I'm emphasizing.

But if I write a paragraph where I emphasise not JUST THIS but ALSO THIS and THIS to YOU, do you UNDERSTAND how THIS comes across as MORE AGRESSIVE than THAT?

If you change the way you emphasize, but you aren't changing your pattern of emphasis, you haven't changed at all.

[Age]

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

So in other words you are a troll.

You are absolutely free to assume and choose absolutely any thing you like.

If that is what you 'assume' I AM, and 'choose' to BELIEVE I am doing, then, from your perspective, that will be EXACTLY what is true, to you.

I have a targeted audience, for which I am writing FOR. If that makes me a so-called 'troll', then so be it.

I, however, have and use ANOTHER defintion for the 'troll' word here.

[Age]

What 'you', people, seem to forget is that a sound and valid argument is irrefutable

You are boring ken, fuck off.

And this is what used to take place in so-called "philosophical discussions", back in those OLDEN DAYS.

So, you could well imagine just how people spoke to each other outside of what was meant to be 'philosophical discussions', when people used to fight/argue over other, far less meaningful, matters.