Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:16 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 8:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 12:30 am

The absolute NONSENSE, and thus the UGLINESS, of this scene here IS OBVIOUSLY the result of a human-made creation.

LOL, and 'you' are doing EXACTLY what 'we' ALREADY KNEW 'you' would DO, RUNNING AWAY. HERE 'we' have IRREFUTABLE PROOF again how COWARDLY and HYPOCRITICAL people were, BACK in that TIME in HISTORY when THIS was being WRITTEN. So, now that we ACKNOWLEDGE that 'you' do NOT UTILIZE 'proof', what REAL 'evidence' could 'you' be UTILIZING for this ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD, FALSE, INACCURATE, AND INCORRECT CONCLUSION OF YOURS here? Here we have ANOTHER who has NOT YET CORROBORATED NOR endorsed just ONE of 'its' ASSERTIONS, FLED FROM ANY and EVERY CHALLENGE, WOULD NOT OPENLY and candidly just RESPOND to the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS POSED, all the while just GLANCING AT and 'endeavoring to' ATTACK the "other". As for the ACTUAL THREAT that DOING SO IMPOSES, we will simply have to WAIT, TO SEE. Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. So, 'you' NEVER REQUEST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CONTESTING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', YET 'you' FORM the VIEW, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, substantiating Oneness was NEVER the contention here. I merely RESPONDED to the CLARIFYING QUESTION 'you' POSED to me. Which is some 'thing' that 'you' seem to be UNWILLING to do "yourself". Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. So, as soon as I challenge 'you' to ILLUSTRATE what 'you' ALLEGE is 'demonstrably true', INSTEAD of just ENGAGING in 'this', 'you' ASSERT I have NOT disclosed ANY points. AND, what 'you' are 'currently' PRESUMING is ALSO just as INACCURATE. This one here IS, ONCE AGAIN, SUBSTANTIATING ANOTHER ASSERTION of mine. Namely; they WILL PRESUME 'things' BEFORE they even INITIATE the QUEST FOR CLARITY FIRST. Thus, the reason WHY they were/are SO INACCURATE, SO FREQUENTLY. However, what 'you,' people, UTILIZE to AFFIRM 'your' own convictions is 'your' own, individual, PAST EXPERIENCES. Feel free to PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'me' and DRAW as MANY INFERENCES as 'you' wish, ABOUT 'me', but merely doing so does NOT validate ANY of 'them,' NEITHER correct NOR true. What I've been ACCUSING these individuals of perpetuating ALL ALONG. Namely; ASSERTING that 'things' can NEVER be demonstrated as true, or that there is NO truth, YET what they EXPRESS and HOLD AS TRUE IS, somehow magically, absolutely accurate, absolutely certain, or IS the VERITABLE TRUTH. Nevertheless, when an individual among 'you' ACCEPTS A CERTAIN 'thing,' CONCRETE VERIFICATION IS NOT INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED. Also, and incidentally, your PRESUMPTIONS are GUIDING 'you' VERY FAR AWAY from the truth. Notice that 'you,' HUMANITY, CAN AND DO EMBRACE CERTAIN 'beliefs' THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY CONTRADICT THE IRREFUTABLE TRUTH OF 'things,' YET PERSIST IN REGARDING THAT 'thing' AS TRUE. 'you' could NOT BE MORE NOR FURTHER INACCURATE, even if 'you' wished or attempted to be. The ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE FAILING of 'age' is HERE for ALL to SEE.

If 'you', "atla", SAY SO.

Or, did 'you' NOT SAY SO here?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:16 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 8:11 am
LOL, and 'you' are doing EXACTLY what 'we' ALREADY KNEW 'you' would DO, RUNNING AWAY. HERE 'we' have IRREFUTABLE PROOF again how COWARDLY and HYPOCRITICAL people were, BACK in that TIME in HISTORY when THIS was being WRITTEN. So, now that we ACKNOWLEDGE that 'you' do NOT UTILIZE 'proof', what REAL 'evidence' could 'you' be UTILIZING for this ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY ABSURD, FALSE, INACCURATE, AND INCORRECT CONCLUSION OF YOURS here? Here we have ANOTHER who has NOT YET CORROBORATED NOR endorsed just ONE of 'its' ASSERTIONS, FLED FROM ANY and EVERY CHALLENGE, WOULD NOT OPENLY and candidly just RESPOND to the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS POSED, all the while just GLANCING AT and 'endeavoring to' ATTACK the "other". As for the ACTUAL THREAT that DOING SO IMPOSES, we will simply have to WAIT, TO SEE. Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. So, 'you' NEVER REQUEST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CONTESTING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', YET 'you' FORM the VIEW, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, substantiating Oneness was NEVER the contention here. I merely RESPONDED to the CLARIFYING QUESTION 'you' POSED to me. Which is some 'thing' that 'you' seem to be UNWILLING to do "yourself". Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. So, as soon as I challenge 'you' to ILLUSTRATE what 'you' ALLEGE is 'demonstrably true', INSTEAD of just ENGAGING in 'this', 'you' ASSERT I have NOT disclosed ANY points. AND, what 'you' are 'currently' PRESUMING is ALSO just as INACCURATE. This one here IS, ONCE AGAIN, SUBSTANTIATING ANOTHER ASSERTION of mine. Namely; they WILL PRESUME 'things' BEFORE they even INITIATE the QUEST FOR CLARITY FIRST. Thus, the reason WHY they were/are SO INACCURATE, SO FREQUENTLY. However, what 'you,' people, UTILIZE to AFFIRM 'your' own convictions is 'your' own, individual, PAST EXPERIENCES. Feel free to PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'me' and DRAW as MANY INFERENCES as 'you' wish, ABOUT 'me', but merely doing so does NOT validate ANY of 'them,' NEITHER correct NOR true. What I've been ACCUSING these individuals of perpetuating ALL ALONG. Namely; ASSERTING that 'things' can NEVER be demonstrated as true, or that there is NO truth, YET what they EXPRESS and HOLD AS TRUE IS, somehow magically, absolutely accurate, absolutely certain, or IS the VERITABLE TRUTH. Nevertheless, when an individual among 'you' ACCEPTS A CERTAIN 'thing,' CONCRETE VERIFICATION IS NOT INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED. Also, and incidentally, your PRESUMPTIONS are GUIDING 'you' VERY FAR AWAY from the truth. Notice that 'you,' HUMANITY, CAN AND DO EMBRACE CERTAIN 'beliefs' THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY CONTRADICT THE IRREFUTABLE TRUTH OF 'things,' YET PERSIST IN REGARDING THAT 'thing' AS TRUE. 'you' could NOT BE MORE NOR FURTHER INACCURATE, even if 'you' wished or attempted to be. The ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE FAILING of 'age' is HERE for ALL to SEE.

If 'you', "atla", SAY SO.

Or, did 'you' NOT SAY SO here?

WHY do 'you' SAY 'this', 'age'? Do 'you' ALREADY POSSESS, WITHOUT DOUBT, AND THUS UNDENIABLY, WHAT THE AUTHENTIC TRUTH IS, EXACTLY? OR, PERHAPS 'you' WERE NOT PURSUING AN ANSWER here, correct?Similar to the RESPONSE to the QUERY, WHICH 'you' PRESENTED, PENNED, AND INQUIRED ABOUT here WOULD REVEAL TO 'you' WHAT 'you' ARE SEEKING in this instance. AND, EVIDENTLY, IF 'this one' ACQUIRED THE RESPONSE TO THE QUERY 'this one' PRESENTED AND ASKED here, THEN, AT LEAST FOR 'this one', 'they' WILL BE A STEP CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING IF 'you', HUMANITY, WERE FORMED BY 'chance', SOLELY, BY SOMEONE WHO ORCHESTRATED AN APPARENT 'accident', OR MERELY BY One, WHICH 'you', HUMANITY, HAVE STILL YET TO DISCOVER, AND COMPREHEND, IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS IS BEING WRITTEN. The RESPONSE WOULD, EVIDENTLY, DISCLOSE TO 'them' WHAT 'they' WERE SEEKING. THIS SHOULD ALL be OBVIOUS to 'you' TOO, 'age'.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:56 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:16 pm

If 'you', "atla", SAY SO.

Or, did 'you' NOT SAY SO here?

WHY do 'you' SAY 'this', 'age'? Do 'you' ALREADY POSSESS, WITHOUT DOUBT, AND THUS UNDENIABLY, WHAT THE AUTHENTIC TRUTH IS, EXACTLY? OR, PERHAPS 'you' WERE NOT PURSUING AN ANSWER here, correct?Similar to the RESPONSE to the QUERY, WHICH 'you' PRESENTED, PENNED, AND INQUIRED ABOUT here WOULD REVEAL TO 'you' WHAT 'you' ARE SEEKING in this instance. AND, EVIDENTLY, IF 'this one' ACQUIRED THE RESPONSE TO THE QUERY 'this one' PRESENTED AND ASKED here, THEN, AT LEAST FOR 'this one', 'they' WILL BE A STEP CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING IF 'you', HUMANITY, WERE FORMED BY 'chance', SOLELY, BY SOMEONE WHO ORCHESTRATED AN APPARENT 'accident', OR MERELY BY One, WHICH 'you', HUMANITY, HAVE STILL YET TO DISCOVER, AND COMPREHEND, IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS IS BEING WRITTEN. The RESPONSE WOULD, EVIDENTLY, DISCLOSE TO 'them' WHAT 'they' WERE SEEKING. THIS SHOULD ALL be OBVIOUS to 'you' TOO, 'age'.

Got 'you'.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 1:56 pm
WHY do 'you' SAY 'this', 'age'? Do 'you' ALREADY POSSESS, WITHOUT DOUBT, AND THUS UNDENIABLY, WHAT THE AUTHENTIC TRUTH IS, EXACTLY? OR, PERHAPS 'you' WERE NOT PURSUING AN ANSWER here, correct?Similar to the RESPONSE to the QUERY, WHICH 'you' PRESENTED, PENNED, AND INQUIRED ABOUT here WOULD REVEAL TO 'you' WHAT 'you' ARE SEEKING in this instance. AND, EVIDENTLY, IF 'this one' ACQUIRED THE RESPONSE TO THE QUERY 'this one' PRESENTED AND ASKED here, THEN, AT LEAST FOR 'this one', 'they' WILL BE A STEP CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING IF 'you', HUMANITY, WERE FORMED BY 'chance', SOLELY, BY SOMEONE WHO ORCHESTRATED AN APPARENT 'accident', OR MERELY BY One, WHICH 'you', HUMANITY, HAVE STILL YET TO DISCOVER, AND COMPREHEND, IN THE DAYS WHEN THIS IS BEING WRITTEN. The RESPONSE WOULD, EVIDENTLY, DISCLOSE TO 'them' WHAT 'they' WERE SEEKING. THIS SHOULD ALL be OBVIOUS to 'you' TOO, 'age'.

Got 'you'.

WHAT do 'you' CLAIM to GET, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 3:21 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:15 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2023 10:25 pm

Got 'you'.

WHAT do 'you' CLAIM to GET, EXACTLY?

I do not claim to get anything. However, if I did, then I would claim to get you.

Do you understand me here, also?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 3:21 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2023 12:15 am
WHAT do 'you' CLAIM to GET, EXACTLY?

I do not claim to get anything. However, if I did, then I would claim to get you.

Do you understand me here, also?

NO, 'i' do NOT UNDERSTAND you HERE.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am And 'i' also do NOT know WHERE ELSE 'i' ALREADY SUPPOSEDLY understood 'you'.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am WILL you be MORE SPECIFIC?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:27 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 3:21 am

I do not claim to get anything. However, if I did, then I would claim to get you.

Do you understand me here, also?

NO, 'i' do NOT UNDERSTAND you HERE.

Okay.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am And 'i' also do NOT know WHERE ELSE 'i' ALREADY SUPPOSEDLY understood 'you'.

Why would you use the supposedly word here? Using it certainly does not fit it with what I said and asked.

Also, it was good to see you use the right i here.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am WILL you be MORE SPECIFIC?

In regards to what exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:46 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:27 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am
NO, 'i' do NOT UNDERSTAND you HERE.

Okay.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am And 'i' also do NOT know WHERE ELSE 'i' ALREADY SUPPOSEDLY understood 'you'.

Why would you use the supposedly word here? Using it certainly does not fit it with what I said and asked.

Also, it was good to see you use the right i here.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:31 am WILL you be MORE SPECIFIC?

In regards to what exactly?

MORE OBFUSCATION from 'age' as can CLEARLY be SEEN by the AUDIENCE. I am TRULY becoming VERY FATIGUED and BORED with these human beings who BELIEVE that BELIEFS ARE NECESSARY, and that absolutely EVERY one MUST BELIEVE 'things', otherwise they could NOT even exist. What I have been ACCUSING these individuals of doing ALL ALONG. That is; ASSERTING that 'things' can NEVER be proven to be true, or that there is NO truth, BUT what they EXPRESS and BELIEVE is true IS, somehow magically, absolutely true, absolutely certain to be true, or IS the TRUTH. But, 'this' WAS THE COMMON HABIT OF 'those' WHO did NOT LOOK AND LISTEN FROM the Truly OPEN PERSPECTIVE. ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have MANAGED TO COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOK EXACTLY what I WAS DISCUSSING AND REFERRING TO here. So, 'we' CAN JUST WAIT, TO SEE what ACTUALLY TRANSPIRES here, 'now'. AND, what you are 'presently' PRESUMING is ALSO just as Incorrect. 'you' can PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' you like, ABOUT 'me', and JUMP TO as MANY CONCLUSIONS as you like, ABOUT 'me', but just doing so does NOT make ANY of 'them' right, NOR true. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, ONCE MORE. Here 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME instance of when 'they', BACK THEN, WOULD MAKE UP False ASSERTIONS and ACCUSATIONS ABOUT 'one', in order TO garner support, and back up, FROM "others". So, 'you' NEVER REQUEST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CONTESTING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', YET 'you' FORM the VIEW, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, substantiating Oneness was NEVER the contention here. I merely RESPONDED to the CLARIFYING QUESTION 'you' POSED to me. Which is some 'thing' that 'you' seem to be UNWILLING to do "yourself". 'These ones', literally, WHEN 'reading' and/or 'listening' TO "another" were ACTUALLY LISTENING TO what can be called 'the little voice' WITHIN 'those heads', ALONE, or FAR MORE SO. Here we have ANOTHER instance of one BELIEVING some 'thing' to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, BEFORE it has ACQUIRED ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR. WHY ACCEPT some 'thing' to be, which, ultimately, may well NOT even be remotely true, let alone ACTUALLY True? Well "others" COULD PROVE 'you' True, AND 'me' Incorrect, here. Or, vice-versa, OF COURSE. I can NOT BE SURE that 'you' WILL EVER DISCLOSE what 'gaslighting' even MEANS, or REFERS TO, TO 'you', EXACTLY, NEITHER. Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. Notice that 'you,' humanity, can and do embrace certain 'beliefs' that unequivocally contradict the irrefutable truth of 'things,' yet persist in regarding that 'thing' as true. I ALSO OBSERVE 'you' completely AND absolutely SIDESTEPPED the POINT ABOUT 'you' NEVER disclosing what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which 'you' ASSERT 'you' REBUTTED. Here, 'they' WERE SEEKING some 'thing', but they DID NOT KNOW what 'it' IS, exactly. The RESPONSE would, EVIDENTLY, DISCLOSE to 'them' what 'they' WERE SEEKING. REALLY, we can ALL clearly SEE that 'age' is ONLY EVER ABLE to play these GAMES and does NOT actually SEEK CLARITY.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:46 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:27 am

Okay.


Why would you use the supposedly word here? Using it certainly does not fit it with what I said and asked.

Also, it was good to see you use the right i here.


In regards to what exactly?

MORE OBFUSCATION from 'age' as can CLEARLY be SEEN by the AUDIENCE. I am TRULY becoming VERY FATIGUED and BORED with these human beings who BELIEVE that BELIEFS ARE NECESSARY, and that absolutely EVERY one MUST BELIEVE 'things', otherwise they could NOT even exist. What I have been ACCUSING these individuals of doing ALL ALONG. That is; ASSERTING that 'things' can NEVER be proven to be true, or that there is NO truth, BUT what they EXPRESS and BELIEVE is true IS, somehow magically, absolutely true, absolutely certain to be true, or IS the TRUTH. But, 'this' WAS THE COMMON HABIT OF 'those' WHO did NOT LOOK AND LISTEN FROM the Truly OPEN PERSPECTIVE. ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have MANAGED TO COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOK EXACTLY what I WAS DISCUSSING AND REFERRING TO here. So, 'we' CAN JUST WAIT, TO SEE what ACTUALLY TRANSPIRES here, 'now'. AND, what you are 'presently' PRESUMING is ALSO just as Incorrect. 'you' can PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' you like, ABOUT 'me', and JUMP TO as MANY CONCLUSIONS as you like, ABOUT 'me', but just doing so does NOT make ANY of 'them' right, NOR true. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, ONCE MORE. Here 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME instance of when 'they', BACK THEN, WOULD MAKE UP False ASSERTIONS and ACCUSATIONS ABOUT 'one', in order TO garner support, and back up, FROM "others". So, 'you' NEVER REQUEST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CONTESTING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', YET 'you' FORM the VIEW, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, substantiating Oneness was NEVER the contention here. I merely RESPONDED to the CLARIFYING QUESTION 'you' POSED to me. Which is some 'thing' that 'you' seem to be UNWILLING to do "yourself". 'These ones', literally, WHEN 'reading' and/or 'listening' TO "another" were ACTUALLY LISTENING TO what can be called 'the little voice' WITHIN 'those heads', ALONE, or FAR MORE SO. Here we have ANOTHER instance of one BELIEVING some 'thing' to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, BEFORE it has ACQUIRED ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR. WHY ACCEPT some 'thing' to be, which, ultimately, may well NOT even be remotely true, let alone ACTUALLY True? Well "others" COULD PROVE 'you' True, AND 'me' Incorrect, here. Or, vice-versa, OF COURSE. I can NOT BE SURE that 'you' WILL EVER DISCLOSE what 'gaslighting' even MEANS, or REFERS TO, TO 'you', EXACTLY, NEITHER. Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. Notice that 'you,' humanity, can and do embrace certain 'beliefs' that unequivocally contradict the irrefutable truth of 'things,' yet persist in regarding that 'thing' as true. I ALSO OBSERVE 'you' completely AND absolutely SIDESTEPPED the POINT ABOUT 'you' NEVER disclosing what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which 'you' ASSERT 'you' REBUTTED. Here, 'they' WERE SEEKING some 'thing', but they DID NOT KNOW what 'it' IS, exactly. The RESPONSE would, EVIDENTLY, DISCLOSE to 'them' what 'they' WERE SEEKING. REALLY, we can ALL clearly SEE that 'age' is ONLY EVER ABLE to play these GAMES and does NOT actually SEEK CLARITY.

Why do you think you write absolute nonsense here?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:51 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:46 am
MORE OBFUSCATION from 'age' as can CLEARLY be SEEN by the AUDIENCE. I am TRULY becoming VERY FATIGUED and BORED with these human beings who BELIEVE that BELIEFS ARE NECESSARY, and that absolutely EVERY one MUST BELIEVE 'things', otherwise they could NOT even exist. What I have been ACCUSING these individuals of doing ALL ALONG. That is; ASSERTING that 'things' can NEVER be proven to be true, or that there is NO truth, BUT what they EXPRESS and BELIEVE is true IS, somehow magically, absolutely true, absolutely certain to be true, or IS the TRUTH. But, 'this' WAS THE COMMON HABIT OF 'those' WHO did NOT LOOK AND LISTEN FROM the Truly OPEN PERSPECTIVE. ONCE AGAIN, 'you' have MANAGED TO COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OVERLOOK EXACTLY what I WAS DISCUSSING AND REFERRING TO here. So, 'we' CAN JUST WAIT, TO SEE what ACTUALLY TRANSPIRES here, 'now'. AND, what you are 'presently' PRESUMING is ALSO just as Incorrect. 'you' can PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' you like, ABOUT 'me', and JUMP TO as MANY CONCLUSIONS as you like, ABOUT 'me', but just doing so does NOT make ANY of 'them' right, NOR true. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, ONCE MORE. Here 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME instance of when 'they', BACK THEN, WOULD MAKE UP False ASSERTIONS and ACCUSATIONS ABOUT 'one', in order TO garner support, and back up, FROM "others". So, 'you' NEVER REQUEST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, while ALSO NEVER CONTESTING ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing', YET 'you' FORM the VIEW, CONCLUSION, AND BELIEF of some 'thing' ANYWAY. Oh, and by the way, substantiating Oneness was NEVER the contention here. I merely RESPONDED to the CLARIFYING QUESTION 'you' POSED to me. Which is some 'thing' that 'you' seem to be UNWILLING to do "yourself". 'These ones', literally, WHEN 'reading' and/or 'listening' TO "another" were ACTUALLY LISTENING TO what can be called 'the little voice' WITHIN 'those heads', ALONE, or FAR MORE SO. Here we have ANOTHER instance of one BELIEVING some 'thing' to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE, BEFORE it has ACQUIRED ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR. WHY ACCEPT some 'thing' to be, which, ultimately, may well NOT even be remotely true, let alone ACTUALLY True? Well "others" COULD PROVE 'you' True, AND 'me' Incorrect, here. Or, vice-versa, OF COURSE. I can NOT BE SURE that 'you' WILL EVER DISCLOSE what 'gaslighting' even MEANS, or REFERS TO, TO 'you', EXACTLY, NEITHER. Here we have ABSOLUTE IRREFUTABLE PROOF of precisely what transpires when one bases their ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING of and on some 'thing', exclusively on a MINISCULE SNIPPET, of the ENTIRE and GRAND Picture. Notice that 'you,' humanity, can and do embrace certain 'beliefs' that unequivocally contradict the irrefutable truth of 'things,' yet persist in regarding that 'thing' as true. I ALSO OBSERVE 'you' completely AND absolutely SIDESTEPPED the POINT ABOUT 'you' NEVER disclosing what the 'it' word IS/WAS, which 'you' ASSERT 'you' REBUTTED. Here, 'they' WERE SEEKING some 'thing', but they DID NOT KNOW what 'it' IS, exactly. The RESPONSE would, EVIDENTLY, DISCLOSE to 'them' what 'they' WERE SEEKING. REALLY, we can ALL clearly SEE that 'age' is ONLY EVER ABLE to play these GAMES and does NOT actually SEEK CLARITY.

Why do you think you write absolute nonsense here?

BUT 'you' WROTE this ALLEGED 'ABSOLUTE NONSENSE', so WE ALL EAGERLY AWAIT 'your' HONEST ANSWER to 'your' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:51 am

Why do you think you write absolute nonsense here?

BUT 'you' WROTE this ALLEGED 'ABSOLUTE NONSENSE', so WE ALL EAGERLY AWAIT 'your' HONEST ANSWER to 'your' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

To show that this one has absolutely no actual idea of what is going on here I will ask, 'Which was what exactly?'

And this one will again not answer and clarify this question posed and asked for clarity. In other words it is not intelligent enough to.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:46 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:55 am
BUT 'you' WROTE this ALLEGED 'ABSOLUTE NONSENSE', so WE ALL EAGERLY AWAIT 'your' HONEST ANSWER to 'your' CLARIFYING QUESTION.

To show that this one has absolutely no actual idea of what is going on here I will ask, 'Which was what exactly?'

And this one will again not answer and clarify this question posed and asked for clarity. In other words it is not intelligent enough to.

BETTER luck NEXT TIME, 'age'. It was "Why do you think you write absolute nonsense here?" WELL 'you' WROTE IT so 'you' TELL 'us', 'age'.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:46 am

To show that this one has absolutely no actual idea of what is going on here I will ask, 'Which was what exactly?'

And this one will again not answer and clarify this question posed and asked for clarity. In other words it is not intelligent enough to.

BETTER luck NEXT TIME, 'age'. It was "Why do you think you write absolute nonsense here?" WELL 'you' WROTE IT so 'you' TELL 'us', 'age'.

This once, once again, has shown its true inability to clarify.

And, to further prove the inability of this one even further, I wrote what exactly?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 12:05 pm
BETTER luck NEXT TIME, 'age'. It was "Why do you think you write absolute nonsense here?" WELL 'you' WROTE IT so 'you' TELL 'us', 'age'.

This once, once again, has shown its true inability to clarify.

And, to further prove the inability of this one even further, I wrote what exactly?

The alleged 'ABSOLUTE NONSENSE'. This is the THIRD time that 'i' CLARIFIED it and the FOURTH time that it SHOULD HAVEN BEEN CLEAR even WITHOUT 'my' clarification. SO MUCH for the GREAT INSIGHT and GREAT JUDGING ABILITY of 'age'.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:14 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:10 pm

This once, once again, has shown its true inability to clarify.

And, to further prove the inability of this one even further, I wrote what exactly?

The alleged 'ABSOLUTE NONSENSE'. This is the THIRD time that 'i' CLARIFIED it and the FOURTH time that it SHOULD HAVEN BEEN CLEAR even WITHOUT 'my' clarification. SO MUCH for the GREAT INSIGHT and GREAT JUDGING ABILITY of 'age'.

This would then mean that this is the same amount of times, at least, that this one has shown and proved its complete inability to support its claims and to clarify what it talks about.

Also, how many readers have noticed that when this one chooses to discuss anything with me that this one ends up talking about nearly the exact same things like it is here?

This one does not actually provide anything other just accusations against me.