Name that fallacy...

[seeds]

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

ken [aka, Age] wrote:

"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

Well, that's pretty interesting.

I still stick to my general policy. If a lifeform is communicating with me, I won't think of it as an it but rather a who.

I understand where you are coming from, however, does that also apply to a cat that is communicating to you that she is hungry?

Can a cat or a dog, etc., truly be considered as being a "who"?

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

Well, in light of what was just revealed to you about the alleged presence of a channeled entity, what in the world makes you assume that the "real" Age will be responding to any of this?

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)

I'm actually open to this kind of situation being real. But some of these entities, well, just cause they're disembodied entities, doesn't mean they're wise. But some of them sure think they are.

I personally don't believe in any sort of possession by disembodied entities.

Indeed, I don't believe that any mind (be it embodied or disembodied) can gain direct access and control over any other mind. Our minds are completely separate and autonomous relative to each other, even relative to God.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

I understand where you are coming from, however, does that also apply to a cat that is communicating to you that she is hungry?

Yeah, I don't really think of animals as its.

Can a cat or a dog, etc., truly be considered as being a "who"?

I do.

Well, in light of what was just revealed to you about the alleged presence of a channeled entity, what in the world makes you assume that the "real" Age will be responding to any of this?

I'm not sure what the real Age is. I just mean, what the poster called Age will say. Sure, he may not say anything. You seem to know more about him that I do. Or, her, I guess.

I personally don't believe in any sort of possession by disembodied entities.

OK.

Indeed, I don't believe that any mind (be it embodied or disembodied) can gain direct access and control over any other mind. Our minds are completely separate and autonomous relative to each other, even relative to God.

OK

[Age]

The REAL reason you do NOT interact with me is for the SAME REASON as "others" do NOT interact with me. you do NOT like it when I POINT OUT and SHOW your False,Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect BELIEFS, CLAIMS, or ACCUSATIONS.

There's a thing called bias, in the time this is being written.

I KNOW, I have written ABOUT 'this' here, on a few occasions, ALREADY.

People interpret things in ways that suit their own needs, desires and also in avoidance of fear, etc.

Yes, VERY, VERY True.

Above you have made a mindreading claim.

And how does this so-called 'mindreading' 'thing' ACTUALLY WORK?

Maybe let us start with 'you' first explaining to 'us' what this 'mind' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY.

I'm sure you're aware that some people find your typography irritating.

YES. Some people here have expressed that 'they' feel somewhat IRRITATED by the way I just present some letters here.

I'm sure you're aware that you communicate within a framework related to time and your identity that are out of the ordinary.

YES. And I am pretty sure that you are AWARE that I have ALSO ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY I DO 'this'.

You may not be aware that there are other ways to find out what assumptions are and what people mean when they say things.

Besides just ASKING direct and OPEN QUESTIONS, for CLARITY, I have found the 'other ways' to be unnecessary lengthy ways.

That your questioning approach is just one of many ways to do this.

But IF ANSWERED IS the SHORTEST, QUICKEST, SIMPLEST, and EASIEST way.

That this approach may also irritate people, not because you show their false beliefs, etc., but because of the interpersonal dynamic and the dominance game your approach involves.

If 'this' is what 'you' WANT TO SEE and/or BELIEVE, then that is okay with 'me'.

'you' are just SHOWING ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias'.

Also, WHY are 'you' thinking or believing here that by 'me' just ASKING QUESTIONS is SHOWING "other's" false beliefs, et cetera?

When I SAID and WROTE the words 'POINT OUT' and 'SHOW' above here I was NOT even talking about NOR referring to ANY QUESTIONS that I have ASKED.

So, your bias leads to interpreting people's rejection of you or your approach of both or being critical and dismissive of it in the most flattering way related to yourself.

AND, TO SEE if 'my interpretation' IS Correct or NOT, there NEEDS to be a Truly OPEN and Honest 'two-way' DISCUSSION to take place.

Otherwise, 'your interpretation' here that 'my, ALLEGED, bias' ABOUT 'this' being ' the most flattering way related to "myself" ', might just be 'your OWN bias', correct "iwannaplato"?

Or, do 'you' NOT have 'confirmation biases' "yourself"?

And, AGAIN, ONLY through a Truly OPEN and Honest 'two-way' DISCUSSION, could the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here COME-TO-LIGHT.

Conifirmation bias then takes over and sees nearly any criticism or rejection of what you think the steps should (must) be to be effective, as their dislike of what is, yes, most flattering to you.

MAYBE. We WILL just HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE, correct?

You might want to follow Iambiguous' posts for a while. He has a very similar pattern. His posts are quite different from yours, but a similar bias allows him to think he can read people's minds and seemingly has very little to learn.

But 'you', people, do NOT have 'minds'. WHY do 'you' CONTINUE to think or BELIEVE, and SAY, 'they' DO?

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE I NEED TO LEARN here?

Sometimes this being mirrored - seeing a pattern on has mirrored in another - can lead to a breakthrough.

WHY do 'you' NOT just TELL 'me' what 'you' think, BELIEVE, or IMAGINE I NEED TO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, here, EXACTLY?

Also, did 'you' NOTICE that JUST MAYBE the 'bias' that 'you' HAVE here maybe a False and Incorrect one, but which 'your' OWN 'confirmation biases' has NOT been ALLOWING 'you' TO SEE 'this'?

[Iwannaplato]

Or, do 'you' NOT have 'confirmation biases' "yourself"?

Of course I do, Age.
But I haven't presented myself as free from them like you have. A confirmation bias is the tip of the iceberg of beliefs. One sees (can have too strong a tendency to see) what one believes.
And you have told me that you have no, well, one belief. You present yourself as being transcendent.

And is seeds right that you used to claim you helped people write the Bible and have you earlier made claims to be the deity?

So, again, there could be other reasons than the only one you presented for people reacting as they did.

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE I NEED TO LEARN here?

It depends on what you and/or what you think you are and what you are trying to do. But if you are a disembodied spirit, you might have a lot to learn.

Let me know about what seed passed on to me about your past as ken. True? Not? Partially.

WHY do 'you' NOT just TELL 'me' what 'you' think, BELIEVE, or IMAGINE I NEED TO SEE, and UNDERSTAND, here, EXACTLY?

I don't know exactly. But it seems to bother you when I act like you.

Also, did 'you' NOTICE that JUST MAYBE the 'bias' that 'you' HAVE here maybe a False and Incorrect one, but which 'your' OWN 'confirmation biases' has NOT been ALLOWING 'you' TO SEE 'this'?

I'm not interested in being a host for you. You seem to need hosts. It's a bit like self-doubt. (which is different from self-awarensess). Or the plaguing voice in the brain. Or guilt? These things can't really be alive on their own. They need a host to carry them around.

I don't know if you are that, just that you act like one. It's a parasitical relationship.

Could you clarify your relationship with ken and the bible writers and God?

[Age]

BUT WHO is 'it' coming FROM, EXACTLY?

Age.

And, WHO and/or WHAT is "age", EXACTLY?

Also, if some "other" one or 'thing' PERCEIVED to be 'dehumanizing' 'you', "iwannaplato", THEN would 'you' somehow feel harmed, hurt, or offended, in some way?

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

1. 'it' can be just ANOTHER word for 'person'.

Not at the time this is being written.

Do 'you' PERCEIVE "yourself" to be THE SPEAKER, or THE WRITER, FOR absolutely EVERY one, at the time when this is being written?

Okay. But, the word 'if' is just 'you' just MAKING ANOTHER ASSUMPTION/PRESUMPTION.

The word 'if' is not me making another assumption. And even the sentence as a whole is not. It was an example, in a hypothetical.

Okay, fair enough. 'your' USE of the 'if' word there was just ANOTHER SUGGESTION/CONJECTURE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could ALSO be False, Wrong, Inaccurate and/or Incorrect, AS WELL.

As I CONTINUALLY SAY and POINT OUT, I MUCH PREFER TO JUST LOOK AT and DISCUSS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth INSTEAD, and ONLY.

Well 'this' IS A VERY USELESS response, especially considering the Fact that the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, and even the so-called "expert ones" cou NOT even come up with an AGREED UPON definition of (the word) 'time', itself.

It wasn't a very useful question, but I did my best to answer it.

Are 'you' SURE that 'that QUESTION' was NOT VERY USEFUL?

In Fact are 'you' even SURE of what the ACTUAL INTENTION WAS and STILL IS BEHIND 'that QUESTION'?

REALLY?

Here we have ANOTHER CLAIM.

Yes, and you response is a claim.

YES, and VERY MUCH SO. It is ALSO A CLAIM, which I COULD and WILL STAND BEHIND. Like the OTHER CLAIMS I SAY and MAKE in 'this forum' here.

YET, let 'us' SEE what ACTUAL response 'we' get here when I ASK 'it' to PROVIDE ANY or ALL of the SAID and CLAIMED 'false assumptions', which 'you', "iwannaplato" think or BELIEVE I have made here?

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY "iwannaplato"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I have done this before.

If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE so.

But by CLAIMING 'this' are 'you' now SUGGESTING that 'you' WILL NOT here now?

You claim to have no beliefs.

Yes, so what?

Are 'you' here now SUGGESTING and/or CLAIMING that 'this' IS A False ASSUMPTION?

On one occasion, long ago, you said you had one. I disagree that you have only one.

'you' CAN DISAGREE FOREVER MORE, but the 'thinking' going ON, WITHIN 'this head' ONLY 'I' KNOW, FOR SURE.

Now, if 'you' REALLY WANT TO KEEP DISAGREEING that I have ONLY One BELIEF, ONLY, then PLEASE FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE to list ANY of ALL 'the BELIEFS', which 'you' think or BELIEVE that I HAVE.

Now, is 'this' the ONLY ACTUAL example, if 'it' is, of ANY of these 'false assumptions', which 'you' CLAIM I HAVE?

What are 'you' on ABOUT here "iwannaplato"?

What are you on about, in general, Age?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one is just ASKED to CLARIFY what they are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT or REFERRING TO, INSTEAD of JUST DOING SO, 'they' RUN AWAY, or RETREAT.

What I am ON ABOUT, in general, here, is LEARNING HOW to COMMUNICATE BETTER, with 'you', human beings, while I AWAIT for 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED in MAKING 'the world' A MUCH BETTER place for their children, and for their children, and for their children, forever more. Or, in other words, what I AM DOING here, in general, is DOING what I THINK it TAKES, which WILL CREATE A MUCH BETTER 'world' FOR 'children', in general.

Okay I will NOT now then.

I can live with that.

And, what are those PRESUPPOSED 'beliefs', EXACTLY?

By the way, "iwannaplato" have 'you' NOTICED how OFTEN 'you' ALLUDE TO 'things'?

At a certain point, I find that you are not meeting me, as I would like to be met in a conversation.

YES 'we' HAVE NOTICED. 'you' PREFER to just PRESENT 'your OWN views' and HOPE that "others" WILL PRESENT 'their OPPOSING or AGREEING VIEWS', accordingly.

Whereas, I PREFER to do the DIRECT approach and just ASK FOR CLARITY or ELABORATION. I WILL, sometimes, ALSO JUST DIRECTLY HIGHLIGHT and POINT OUT when some 'thing' IS False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

For example, 'you' EXPRESS some 'things' that SEEM to be the case, TO 'you'. Which I ACCEPT is HOW 'those things' SEEM, TO 'you', even IF, and WHEN, I have a COMPLETELY OPPOSING VIEW.

I have explained this before.

AND, I ACKNOWLEDGED 'this' BEFORE, AS WELL.

So, you EXPLAINING AGAIN, makes some wonder, WHY?

You will only (for the most part) share your positions information, in a dialogue, when asked to do this OR when you make judgments of other people, showing your beliefs and assumptions.

Here 'you' go AGAIN, MAKING JUDGMENTS, and CLAIMS, ABOUT 'me', in regards to ONLY what 'you' THINK or BELIEVE I AM DOING, based on NOTHING MORE than 'your' VERY OWN BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS.

Now, 'you' here WANT TO CLAIM that I MAKE 'judgments of other people', which SHOW, and thus REVEAL, TO 'you', 'my' ALLEGED, beliefs AND assumptions. So, I WILL now QUESTION 'you' ABOUT whether 'you' WILL PROVIDE ACTUAL examples of WHEN 'you' THINK or BELIEVE I have DONE 'this'?

AND AGAIN, if 'you' WILL NOT, then WHY NOT?

Will 'you' PLEASE REFRAIN FROM just ALLUDING TO 'things', when 'you' CLAIM 'things', ESPECIALLY when ABOUT 'me', and INSTEAD JUST PROVIDE the ACTUAL examples?

Again, if no, then WHY NOT?

It ends up like an interrogation.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'you' end up just MAKING ACCUSATIONS, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ACTUAL PROOF.

I'd prefer a more balanced dialogue.

ONCE MORE, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to SAY and CLAIM ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF, what 'you' SAY and CLAIM are just YOUR WORDS, ALONE.

Yes, I know, you think your approach is the only way to get at assumptions and a clear sense of the other person's definitions.

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER THOUGHT 'this' AT ALL.

WHY would 'you' PRESUME such A 'thing' as 'this' here?

I disagree. You have your preferences. I have mine. Allusive communication is missing a lot. I find your communication is missing a lot. At a certain point, I join you, though not in the same style, in not communicating much.

'you' spend quite a bit of 'time' EXPRESSING A LOT OF WORDS, but NOT ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT, or NOT ACTUALLY SAYING A LOT, as some would say.

As AGAIN SHOWN and PROVED just here.

Hopefully now 'you' WILL CLARIFY, especially considering I ASKED, NICELY, for 'you' TO.

I accept that you intended this communication to be nicely presented.

When 'you' SAY and WRITE the words, 'this communication', are 'you' REFERRING TO 'this communication', FROM 'me', in this WHOLE FORUM?

Because if no, then here is ANOTHER example of NOT SEEING the ACTUAL and True INTENTION BEHIND 'the words' being SAID and WRITTEN.

I would say it is more neutral than that.

Okay. 'you' ARE FREE TO SAY what SEEMS, or APPEARS LIKE, TO 'you'.

Nice, to me, is not the mere absence of insults or judgments.

Okay. AND, 'nice' TO "others", CAN BE DIFFERENT, correct?

[Age]

And WHO is "kenneth", "flashdangerpants"?

Why did you name yourself after the male Barbie doll btw?

BUT I DID NOT.

WHY WOULD 'you', and WHY DID 'you', PRESUME SUCH A 'thing', "atla"?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, 'these people', BACK THEN, REALLY seemed UNABLE TO JUST STOP PRESUMING/ASSUMING 'things'. Even no matter how False and/or Wrong 'those PRESUMPTIONS/ASSUMPTIONS' were, EXACTLY, 'they' STILL appeared to LOVE SPREADING and SHARING False AND Wrong PRESUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS.

Maybe 'they' did 'this' in the HOPE that those Falsehoods would 'CATCH ON', as some would say.

[Age]

"iwannaplato" is obviously hallucinating if 'it' thinks or believes that I do or have done what 'it' is alleging here.

'It'??
In the time that this was written this would be considered dehumanizing.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

ken [aka, Age] wrote:

"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

Here is ANOTHER example of HOW MISINTERPRETING, BEFORE CLARIFYING, LEADS 'you', people, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY.

There is NO "age's/ken's body".

Also, UNTIL 'you' START TO SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP ASSUMING WHATEVER 'you' LIKE here.

OBVIOUSLY, what 'you' ARE PRESUMING/ASSUMING here is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. BUT, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP PRESUMING, ASSUMING, and/or BELIEVING that 'those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect 'things' ARE NOT.

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)
_______

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT 'its' BEST.

Saying, 'Now that 'we' understand 'your' dilemma', SHOWS and REVEALS HOW 'their' BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS would NOT ALLOW 'them' to FIND and SEE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

It was mostly for 'this VERY REASON' WHY the 'human being' stage was such A VERY LONG and DRAWN OUT process.

Also, ONCE AGAIN, THANK 'you' for RELAYING and REMINDING 'us' here of what 'I' have ALREADY SAID and MENTIONED, previously. Doing so HELPS, TREMENDOUSLY.

[Age]

Did you guys notice that this universal-mind-thing that Age is channeling has the exact same cognitive oddities as Age the human does?

Did 'you' so-called "guys", ALSO, NOTICE how Truly SELF-CONTRADICTORY 'this' WAS TO CLAIM?

Was the ATTEMPT AT RIDICULE, HUMILIATION, PUT-DOWN ALSO BLINDINGLY NOTICED, AS WELL?

Was the Fact that for A LOT of 'these adult human beings', BACK THEN, the ONLY REAL WAY that 'they' could FEEL BETTER ABOUT "themselves" was by ATTEMPTING or 'TRYING TO' PUT "others" DOWN, ALSO Truly NOTICED?

Which must be why Age was chosen for the job. But those who don't yet know THE ACTUAL TRUTH, might be tempted to go with a more mundane explanation for this most remarkable coincidence.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN, ONCE AGAIN, 'confirmation biases' WORKING, at their BEST.

[Iwannaplato]

And, WHO and/or WHAT is "age", EXACTLY?

You tell me. I answered the question, now more questions come. You have much more information about yourself. Let me know. You seem to think your approach is the fastest way. But here you are asking me about yourself.

Also, if some "other" one or 'thing' PERCEIVED to be 'dehumanizing' 'you', "iwannaplato", THEN would 'you' somehow feel harmed, hurt, or offended, in some way?

I'd prefer not to be referred to as an it. If you need more information to respect that, well, you will continue to need more information about that.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

1. 'it' can be just ANOTHER word for 'person'.

Not at the time this is being written.

Do 'you' PERCEIVE "yourself" to be THE SPEAKER, or THE WRITER, FOR absolutely EVERY one, at the time when this is being written?

You seem to think you are that.

Okay, fair enough. 'your' USE of the 'if' word there was just ANOTHER SUGGESTION/CONJECTURE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could ALSO be False, Wrong, Inaccurate and/or Incorrect, AS WELL.

Yes, just like your saying that 'it' can refer to another person, especially in the case where you are addressing that person. That was you speaking for everyone, saying that it can be, period. It was also a conjecture that could be wrong.

As I CONTINUALLY SAY and POINT OUT, I MUCH PREFER TO JUST LOOK AT and DISCUSS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth INSTEAD, and ONLY.

Yes, I noticed.

Well 'this' IS A VERY USELESS response, especially considering the Fact that the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, and even the so-called "expert ones" cou NOT even come up with an AGREED UPON definition of (the word) 'time', itself.

It wasn't a very useful question, but I did my best to answer it.

Are 'you' SURE that 'that QUESTION' was NOT VERY USEFUL?

Are you sure it was useful?

In Fact are 'you' even SURE of what the ACTUAL INTENTION WAS and STILL IS BEHIND 'that QUESTION'?

Are you sure of your own intentions, or might the ego-dystonic ones be hard for you to face?

REALLY?

Here we have ANOTHER CLAIM.

Yes, and you response is a claim.

YES, and VERY MUCH SO. It is ALSO A CLAIM, which I COULD and WILL STAND BEHIND. Like the OTHER CLAIMS I SAY and MAKE in 'this forum' here.

OK.

YET, let 'us' SEE what ACTUAL response 'we' get here when I ASK 'it' to PROVIDE ANY or ALL of the SAID and CLAIMED 'false assumptions', which 'you', "iwannaplato" think or BELIEVE I have made here?

Will 'you' PROVIDE ANY "iwannaplato"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I have done this before.

If 'you' SAY and BELIEVE so.

But by CLAIMING 'this' are 'you' now SUGGESTING that 'you' WILL NOT here now?

It's quite clear.

You claim to have no beliefs.

Yes, so what?

Why not wait and see what the next sentence is before asking another question. You claim to have the fastest method, but instead of reading things in context, you jump to questions.

On one occasion, long ago, you said you had one. I disagree that you have only one.

'you' CAN DISAGREE FOREVER MORE, but the 'thinking' going ON, WITHIN 'this head' ONLY 'I' KNOW, FOR SURE.

Actually like most sentient beings, you can be mistaken also. Or you can claim complete and flawless introspection. But I don't believe that either.

Now, if 'you' REALLY WANT TO KEEP DISAGREEING that I have ONLY One BELIEF, ONLY, then PLEASE FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE to list ANY of ALL 'the BELIEFS', which 'you' think or BELIEVE that I HAVE.

You have the believe that you know all of what is going on in your head for sure. There's two beliefs. You believe that the process you use is the fastest most effective one, that's three. I could go on.

Now, is 'this' the ONLY ACTUAL example, if 'it' is, of ANY of these 'false assumptions', which 'you' CLAIM I HAVE?

One is enough. My goals are humble.

What are 'you' on ABOUT here "iwannaplato"?

What are you on about, in general, Age?

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN one is just ASKED to CLARIFY what they are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT or REFERRING TO, INSTEAD of JUST DOING SO, 'they' RUN AWAY, or RETREAT.

And here's another belief, in fact it's two beliefs: one general, one specific.

What I am ON ABOUT, in general, here, is LEARNING HOW to COMMUNICATE BETTER, with 'you', human beings, while I AWAIT for 'those' who ARE Truly INTERESTED in MAKING 'the world' A MUCH BETTER place for their children, and for their children, and for their children, forever more.

Who the fuck do you think you are to test me?

I see the word 'fuck' as an intensifier. I think you have mistaken extremely megalomaniac beliefs about yourself. I could be wrong. Who or what do you think you are?

Or, in other words, what I AM DOING here, in general, is DOING what I THINK it TAKES, which WILL CREATE A MUCH BETTER 'world' FOR 'children', in general.

Another belief.

By the way, "iwannaplato" have 'you' NOTICED how OFTEN 'you' ALLUDE TO 'things'?

Have you notice how often you don't even rise to the level of alluding, though you allude also, see the quote above.

YES 'we' HAVE NOTICED. 'you' PREFER to just PRESENT 'your OWN views' and HOPE that "others" WILL PRESENT 'their OPPOSING or AGREEING VIEWS', accordingly.

There are other options beyond the binary opposing or agreeing. There can be parallel, complementary, and other options.

Whereas, I PREFER to do the DIRECT approach and just ASK FOR CLARITY or ELABORATION. I WILL, sometimes, ALSO JUST DIRECTLY HIGHLIGHT and POINT OUT when some 'thing' IS False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.

Each time revealing another belief.

AND, I ACKNOWLEDGED 'this' BEFORE, AS WELL.

So, you EXPLAINING AGAIN, makes some wonder, WHY?

Misplaced comma. makes some wonder why? Makes some wonder, why? is asking why they wonder not why I am explaining again.

Here 'you' go AGAIN, MAKING JUDGMENTS, and CLAIMS, ABOUT 'me', in regards to ONLY what 'you' THINK or BELIEVE I AM DOING, based on NOTHING MORE than 'your' VERY OWN BELIEFS or ASSUMPTIONS.

And here you are making a judgment of what I am doing what you think and believe....another belief.

Now, 'you' here WANT TO CLAIM that I MAKE 'judgments of other people', which SHOW, and thus REVEAL, TO 'you', 'my' ALLEGED, beliefs AND assumptions. So, I WILL now QUESTION 'you' ABOUT whether 'you' WILL PROVIDE ACTUAL examples of WHEN 'you' THINK or BELIEVE I have DONE 'this'?

I have done this in other posts. Because the same questions come back when answered, it begins to seem like you like the role of the questioner more than the getting of information. I suppose it could also mean you don't remember ego-dystonic information.

AND AGAIN, if 'you' WILL NOT, then WHY NOT?

Will 'you' PLEASE REFRAIN FROM just ALLUDING TO 'things', when 'you' CLAIM 'things', ESPECIALLY when ABOUT 'me', and INSTEAD JUST PROVIDE the ACTUAL examples?

The phrase 'in the time this was written' alludes to all sorts of things. It makes implicit claims, thought it's not clear what they are. AGain, you often don't manage to arise to the level of allusion though you do allude and with regularlity.

AND, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, 'you' end up just MAKING ACCUSATIONS, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ACTUAL PROOF.

which you also do.

I'd prefer a more balanced dialogue.

ONCE MORE, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to SAY and CLAIM ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF, what 'you' SAY and CLAIM are just YOUR WORDS, ALONE.

As you posts are yours alone. Have you noticed how alone you are? I don't know if anyone is as alone as you are.

BUT I HAVE NEVER EVER THOUGHT 'this' AT ALL.

WHY would 'you' PRESUME such A 'thing' as 'this' here?

This was absurd

'you' spend quite a bit of 'time' EXPRESSING A LOT OF WORDS, but NOT ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT, or NOT ACTUALLY SAYING A LOT, as some would say.

What you mean here is that you don't understand the point. You add to that your belief that the problem is my communication.

As AGAIN SHOWN and PROVED just here.

You are confused about what proof means. But you may have satisfied your own criteria.

Hopefully now 'you' WILL CLARIFY, especially considering I ASKED, NICELY, for 'you' TO.

I accept that you intended this communication to be nicely presented.

I would say it is more neutral than that.

Okay. 'you' ARE FREE TO SAY what SEEMS, or APPEARS LIKE, TO 'you'.

don't tell me what I am free to do. It implies that if I do something else, I am not free to do that.

Nice, to me, is not the mere absence of insults or judgments.

Okay. AND, 'nice' TO "others", CAN BE DIFFERENT, correct?

You haven't earned another question.

Are you a disembodied entity that inhabits Ken?
Do you think you are God or some kind of divine messenger who communicated with the Bible writers?
What do you think you are Age?

You have alluded to what you are in a hundreds of small ways. Waht you think you are affects all of your communication.

[Iwannaplato]

'It'??
In the time that this was written this would be considered dehumanizing.

Whatever I may think of you, Age, I would not refer to you as an it.

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

ken [aka, Age] wrote:

"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

Here is ANOTHER example of HOW MISINTERPRETING, BEFORE CLARIFYING, LEADS 'you', people, COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ASTRAY.

There is NO "age's/ken's body".

Also, UNTIL 'you' START TO SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP ASSUMING WHATEVER 'you' LIKE here.

OBVIOUSLY, what 'you' ARE PRESUMING/ASSUMING here is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect. BUT, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO KEEP PRESUMING, ASSUMING, and/or BELIEVING that 'those False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect 'things' ARE NOT.

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)
_______

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT 'its' BEST.

Saying, 'Now that 'we' understand 'your' dilemma', SHOWS and REVEALS HOW 'their' BELIEFS or PRESUMPTIONS would NOT ALLOW 'them' to FIND and SEE what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

It was mostly for 'this VERY REASON' WHY the 'human being' stage was such A VERY LONG and DRAWN OUT process.

Also, ONCE AGAIN, THANK 'you' for RELAYING and REMINDING 'us' here of what 'I' have ALREADY SAID and MENTIONED, previously. Doing so HELPS, TREMENDOUSLY.

So, you did not post here as Ken?

[Age]

Not so fast there, iwannaplato.

I mean, if not an "it," then what would you call a "channeled entity" that claims to have inspired the writing of the Bible, and is now using Age's/ken's body as a conduit through-which to share "its" thoughts with us right now in the days when this was written?

See the quote below by Age [aka, ken] from a 2017 post...

ken [aka, Age] wrote:

"...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things..."

Well, that's pretty interesting.

I still stick to my general policy. If a lifeform is communicating with me, I won't think of it as an it but rather a who.

AND, let 'us' NOT FORGET, 'Who am 'I'?' IS 'the QUESTION' that 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, WAS a QUESTION still being ASKED, and WONDERED UPON.

For some of 'us', however, the proper AND Correct ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE ANSWER IS ALREADY KNOWN, and WELL AS UNDERSTOOD I will add.

Also noted is that 'you' will call the 'thing' that 'you' will, supposedly, NOT think of as an 'it', an 'it' anyway.

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

The point is that until the unknown something that has commandeered Age's/ken's body, reveals to us what "it" actually is, then I don't think it's at all inappropriate to call it an "it".

I'm open to this, though closed to being called an 'it' by him or it as the case may be.

And, 'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to be CLOSED to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'.

Also noted is that 'you', ONCE MORE, referred to a life form communicating with 'you' as, an 'it'.

(Btw, I wonder where the real Age/ken is. Oh dear! (shades of the Twilight Zone)....If you can somehow read this real Age/ken, then hang in there buddy. Now that we understand your dilemma, we'll keep trying to banish this confused "it" thing from your body so that this impostor creature can no longer make a shambles of your reputation.)

I'm actually open to this kind of situation being real. But some of these entities, well, just cause they're disembodied entities, doesn't mean they're wise. But some of them sure think they are.

While some human beings think that they are SURELY wiser.

[Atla]

And WHO is "kenneth", "flashdangerpants"?

Why did you name yourself after the male Barbie doll btw?

BUT I DID NOT.

WHY WOULD 'you', and WHY DID 'you', PRESUME SUCH A 'thing', "atla"?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, ONCE AGAIN, 'these people', BACK THEN, REALLY seemed UNABLE TO JUST STOP PRESUMING/ASSUMING 'things'. Even no matter how False and/or Wrong 'those PRESUMPTIONS/ASSUMPTIONS' were, EXACTLY, 'they' STILL appeared to LOVE SPREADING and SHARING False AND Wrong PRESUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, and BELIEFS.

Maybe 'they' did 'this' in the HOPE that those Falsehoods would 'CATCH ON', as some would say.

I didn't actually presume it lol

[Atla]

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

If I remember correctly, on her old account Age openly talked as God sometimes. She never had any doubt the she's (channeling) God.

Now she is merely trying to be all "mysterious" about it, hiding the God-channeling behind 10 layers of obfuscation. Now you have to be fully open to what she has to say and fully committed to listening to her and answering clarifying questions for months, before you are ready to be told the ACTUAL TRUTH.

And on the rare occasions that "it" finally reveals the "ACTUAL TRUTH" of something it has been withholding from us, it turns out to be utterly mundane, and absolutely nothing of any revelatory nature.

I mean, you'd think that an other-worldly entity that alleges to have helped inspire the writing of the Bible would have a little more insight into the nature of reality than that of a 14-year-old schoolgirl who just recently put some thought into the big questions.

And in light of the disappointing information that "it" has revealed to us in the past, the channeled entity nevertheless has the gall to wonder why we don't feel like taking the time to ask it innumerable "clarifying questions" in order to elicit more of the same disappointing answers.
_______

She's not even thinking imo, I think she's just hallucinating, hearing voices. That's all there is to it.

[Age]

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

If I remember correctly, on her old account Age openly talked as God sometimes. She never had any doubt the she's (channeling) God.

Now she is merely trying to be all "mysterious" about it, hiding the God-channeling behind 10 layers of obfuscation.

And 'what', EXACTLY, led 'you' to ASSUME or BELIEVE 'this' "atla"?

For 'your' information, WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER come to ALSO LEARN and KNOW who and what God IS, EXACTLY, then 'you' would NOT come to MAKE UP these, OBVIOUSLY, Truly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and False ACCUSATIONS and CLAIMS.

Now you have to be fully open to what she has to say and fully committed to listening to her and answering clarifying questions for months, before you are ready to be told the ACTUAL TRUTH.

ONCE AGAIN, here we have ANOTHER Truly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and False ACCUSATION and CLAIM being MADE.

[Age]

But now I'm really curious to see how Age reacts to all this.

If I remember correctly, on her old account Age openly talked as God sometimes. She never had any doubt the she's (channeling) God.

Now she is merely trying to be all "mysterious" about it, hiding the God-channeling behind 10 layers of obfuscation. Now you have to be fully open to what she has to say and fully committed to listening to her and answering clarifying questions for months, before you are ready to be told the ACTUAL TRUTH.

And on the rare occasions that "it" finally reveals the "ACTUAL TRUTH" of something it has been withholding from us, it turns out to be utterly mundane, and absolutely nothing of any revelatory nature.

BUT IF I HAVE NOT REVEALED some 'thing', which I HAVE NOT, then HOW, EXACTLY, could 'you' KNOW or even be AWARE OF 'it' being so-called 'utterly mundane, and absolutely NOTHING of ANY revelatory nature, "seeds"?

I mean, you'd think that an other-worldly entity that alleges to have helped inspire the writing of the Bible would have a little more insight into the nature of reality than that of a 14-year-old schoolgirl who just recently put some thought into the big questions.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is just MORE talking ABOUT 'I', by 'these people', INSTEAD of ANY ACTUALLY CHALLENGING, nor QUESTIONING, in regards to the ACTUAL WORDS that 'I' have put forth IN FRONT of 'them'.

Also, WHERE is the Truly ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, and False ACCUSATION or CLAIM that 'I' am a so-called 'other-worldly entity' even COMING FROM, EXACTLY?

And in light of the disappointing information that "it" has revealed to us in the past,

And 'what', EXACTLY, would 'you' like to CLAIM is the so-called 'disappointing information', which 'I' have, supposedly, REVEALED to 'you', people, in the past, "seeds"?

But, OBVIOUSLY, ONCE AGAIN, NOT a shred of ANY CLARITY will be provided here.

As "seeds' WILL, ONCE AGAIN, PROVE 'me' True here.

the channeled entity nevertheless has the gall to wonder why we don't feel like taking the time to ask it innumerable "clarifying questions" in order to elicit more of the same disappointing answers.
_______

But I ALREADY KNOW EXACTLY WHY 'you', people, BACK THEN, do NOT 'feel' like ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. 'This' IS EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.