I want to know...

Post Reply New Topic

No, you are boring, you seem to have very few interests therefore you are boring. No you wouldn't want that at all would you? You'd rather sit behind a mighty computer wall and call me twit and assume things completely oblivious to how arrogant you are. So what if he's a risk taker? He could still be amazingly boring, just like you.

Which is exactly what I said you were angry about, I said that I wasted your comment, you said that I didn't make any points. The comeback was intentional because of your sorry "points" which were hardly points at all, you hardly ever address any of the issues, you just ignore them. That would probably make more sense than some of the stuff you've said on here and probably have more value.

Again, you've missed the point, thanks alot (Sarcasm).

Those were rhetorical questions. My "desired result" is people telling me how they deal with the questions I posed.

Why? Just more bull**** to support your arguement. Everybody has emotions, people focused too much on logic just tend to have less of them. Of course it does, you just don't see the connection.

Then by your deffinition all people that believe lies are delusional, but the truth is, only people that see things that aren't there are delusional, for example, if I saw a pink elephant but nobody did, then I might've been delusional, but if i'd been TOLD that someone once saw a pink elephant and believed it then I wouldn't, i'd just be extemely gullible.

No, I am simply proving my point that not everyone can control what they do, not everyone can control their desires.

So? You can't have fun if you're managing a Country or World, you have to concentrate on keeping control, especially if you're controling it through force of arms which is what you're propsing.

And if they don't eat or drink? What if they don't desire it, they just drink it? Not to stay alive, not because their stomach hurts, not for any reason. What if they're force fed it? Key word "Tends". That was only a statement, not proof, if you want to say something use evidence instead of "I'm right, you're wrong" which is childish, and you think i'm a twit.

You assume despite having very little knowledge, you might as well be claiming that I am a red head for all that you really have knowledge of. I am the arrogant one? Interesting, considering that you are the one who has attacked me for being boring and said that you were the master of personality or some such, which is a rather arrogant claim. Now, I am not going to say that I am not arrogant, I would be lying if I said that. Humanity is marked by being overconfident anyway, so as a species we tend towards some level of arrogance to begin with. Usually risks are not considered boring.

I don't think I ever claimed to be a "master of personality" and I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, I never claimed to be a master of anything unless as a joke. You come off as pretty arrogant to me. Then you're justifying the fact that I'm supposedly arrogant?

No, it isn't. You could have also wasted the comment by totally deleting it and never mentioning it. I would not have responded in such a situation. However, I responded because you made such a comeback. Sir, you are the master of sorry points with your quotes of random crappy fiction and things like that. Frankly, I was putting up with your bad points for a while really and if I missed your points it is because of your inability to be very clear. Of course, i am not going to claim that you have a monopoly on bad points but rather that you have a majority I will also admit that the post you did not like was not my best however, it was not pointless. I have disliked your posting for quite a while to be honest, but I was nice enough at the very least to put up with it for the most part.

Either way I would have wasted it. And you just assumed that I was reading crappy fiction, I was quoting because I was tired of expecting you to understand what I was getting at. I'm gald you had to put up with it because yours were equally crappy in point of view. As I said I've been putting up with you for a while now too.

Probably because I didn't see the point to your desire. It seemed useless and probably was useless. I mean, one thing is that you would do better at a more populous forum, and another thing is that such knowledge could really be approximated if you only knew a few of the typical thoughts for people. Now, you may consider such an answer "missing the point", however, the answer is a way to figure out how people think. There are undoubtedly sources of information that know how people think and you would do well to refer to those because they would be better at giving good representation to the thoughts that people have than what you are trying to do.

Well that's none of your concern is it?

Well, perhaps I just misunderstood something due to odd sentence structure because I am looking at a previous statement for meaning and I still cannot figure it out because of it's poor phrasing. Anyway, I do not see the point to this useless quest to figure out what some random strangers think.

Well then try harder because I've been wasting my time on here for a long time hoping that you might get my point. Again, you don't need to.

More BS? It is quite simple, if we cannot agree on terms then we cannot be able to communicate effectively. Therefore, it is useful to appeal to a 3rd party that is known to be reliable. I use my computer dictionary at home in order to do so. My point is that one must make meanings clear. It is one of the first things you should learn from the internet, if you don't make your points clear then you will frequently be misunderstood. People focused too much on logic may or may not have less emotions but they most certainly focus less on their emotions. One could be illogical but not very emotional either or one could be very logical but with anger management problems or something like that. John Nash from a Beautiful Mind was very logical(mathematician) yet was ruled by fear in many instances. The couch potato might not be very emotional yet is very likely to have problems with logic which allow them to accept many of the plot oddities that can occur on television. What do you mean it does? Do you have correlational study or logic to back this up? I tend to doubt it. What about lawyers or businesses? They know of betrayal most certainly and have distrust, and ofttimes have contracts that are to be interpreted as literally as possible to bind people so that they cannot be betrayed without the betrayer taking legal consequences. Thinking literally would be an asset to prevent betrayal in their circumstances. Really, it is not like the world is full of betrayers that use innuendo to hide their true intentions like they might in some crappy book or play, rather liers try to leave no clue or anything to go off of. Anyway, establish your logical link rather than making this assertion which is based upon nothing.

Well use more dictionaries, don't rely on one. Well when you don't seem to try to understand what I'm saying it gets frustrating so I stop trying, I know that I should try and I have but I can't help it, it's part of my problem as you should know being literal is a part of your problem being that you have ASD. I don't find it a good thing to focus less on emotions, if you think it's a good thing fine but I don't think it is. Those examples you've given tend to be fairly messed up like with John, he was insane. Anyway it was illogical of him to be ruled by his fear because there wasn't anything to fear, just what he saw. Very likely? You're just basing that off what you've seen, but there are lots of intelligent shows, I tend to watch documentries whenever I watch the T.V. so if all I did all day was watch documentries would I still be illogical? But you're still down playing the importantance of not taking things literally, and you can still take things literally while not taking other things literally, it's what alot of NTs do all the time. The world is full of people that aren't literal and understand when someone isn't being literal, but you seem to have a problem with that demonstrated when you took a look at my website and took it literally when I was clearly exagerating things. You don't have any proof that any of what I read is crappy.


de-lu-sion (di-loozhn)n. 1. The act or process of deluding. The state of being deluded. 2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand. 3. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

All people who believe lies are delusional according to the dictionary, as according to the above definition. It is not by my definition but rather by the dictionary one.

As I've already said you have to use lots of different sources not just one, I've found that one dictionary can say something different to another.

If people choose their actions then they controlo what they do. What you are basically saying is yes and no at the same time in a manner that does not make sense.

Well I already told you about those women that had that unnamed disorder, which proves my point that not everyone can control themselves, I don't know how else to put it.

I have never proposed taking over the world and no empire can be sustained by force of arms anyway, I said that some people were cool because they did so but that does not mean that I will try to do as such. Eventually diplomacy is necessary and assimilation to the new ways. It is interesting to note that many US presidents like being presidents and they do try to manage their country and under unfavorable circumstances like a lack of control. They may stress out somewhat but most seek a second term.

That's another example of me not being literal I didn't mean you personally I mean't you as in people, that might not make sense but NTs do that alot, at least the ones I know do.

If they do not eat or drink or think then they are braindead. I included thinking one of the previous times I posted. If they are forcefed and do not think then they are essentially a vegetable and I previously stated that I was not including vegetables AKA the braindead. Besides, one still is desiring something if one is thinking, even if it is a desire to keep everything the same. If one does not desire then one would be labeled as braindead anyway. You use as much or less evidence as I do. Most of the stuff you think of is some crazy crap from some book anyway. You are a twit, you are a big twit and not a particularly smart one either. I am through with this conversation and I probably should have given it up a bit earlier. Good bye.