It could be construed that you want other people to commit before you do.
You appear to have even misconstrued what the âthatâ word is in relation to exactly.
It could be construed that you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I wrote. It could be construed that a conversation built upon a non-assertionâlike your Even here, it could be construed that your superiority complex shines bright could be construed to beâis a waste of time, as one can construe almost anything. It seems it might be the case that I find myself drawn to other activities. One might find that I no longer respond, not because I am unable to continue this type of conversation, but because this activity could be construed to be built on something - see above - that functions like disingenousness, even if that can be construed by some as not the conscious intent.
Which is EXACTLY why I recommend that you seek out and obtain actual clarity first, before you even begin to start presuming, concluding, and believing things. If you did not construe anything, before you obtained actual clarification, then you would not keep misconstruing things and keep getting so far off track as you do.
It could be construed that your first sentence is a sentence fragment, grammatically. For the sake of clarity, what is the antecedent of âWhichâ?
Is this âtrackâ I supposedly keep getting so far off a literal track or a metaphorical track? And, either way, for the sake of clarity, what exactly is this track?
That, which immediately preceded my post. Which was your post.
Could you provide an example of a literal track?
If you canât, then that should provide clarity.
What we were first discussing, but which we can sidetracked from.
The whole post, even the first question? What do you mean by âwhich is whyâ?
Yes.
I think the first thing we discussed in this thread was my posting quotes of yours. Is that the discussion we can be sidetracked from? I assumed you meant to include âbeâ in that sentence. We seem to have moved on, though I wouldnât frame it as sidetracked. Do you feel sidetracked?
Yes, the whole post, in particular the first four words.
Once more, if, âIt could be construed âŚâ, then I recommend that one seek out clarification and obtain clarity first, prior, or before.
I do not recall writing, âwhich is whyâ.
What was it in relation to exactly?
Is it one that both of us could be on, in this forum?
I was meant to write, âgotâ, instead of âcanâ.
Okay.
No.
Until a topic of discussion is resolved, which, to me, is when everyone in the discussion has reached an accepted agreement, then every further discussion point is a sidetrack. To me, changing topics or âmoving pastâ unresolved topics has not actually âmoved onâ; âmoved onâ, to me, does not occur successfully until agreement and acceptance are reached first. But I obviously look at and see things very, very differently than people here. Most people may well concur that moving past unresolved issues or topics is âmoving onâ in life, but I certainly do not.
Ah, yes, the ones you also used.
It could be construed that you didnât do that when you wrote:
Even here, it could be construed that your superiority complex shines bright.
but perhaps not having those four words as the first four words you donât recommend one seek out clarification. One could construe this as all very interesting.
I donât know about you, but yes, I am often on a literal track while participating in this forum. The wonders of modern devices and the benefits of a little exercise. It could be construed that since you said:
If you did not construe anything, before you obtained actual clarification, then you would not keep misconstruing things and keep getting so far off track as you do.
It was not a literal or metaphorical track we both were on or getting so far off of.
Wonderful.
Great, you do not feel sidetracked. I do not feel sidetracked. It could be construed then that there has been no moving on problematically since no one feels sidetracked. Thereâs been a bit of construing on the issue. And, of course, it could be construed that everyone is participating of their own free will in this discussion, regardless of whether there was moving on or agreements or not.
Once again, I recommend finding out and gaining clarity first. If you did, then you will find out you can never find yourself wrong and incorrect. But, as always, if you do not want to then, then you are absolutely free to choose to not to do so
Once again, they could, if they wanted to.
If you say so, okay.
Again, we will not know until clarification is sought out and obtained first.
Ah, of course, you didnât want to. Good role modeling.
Ah, so simple.
Lovely. So, one could construe that since you did not feel sidetracked and we were having a conversation, then no inappropriate without-having-reached-an agreement moving on could have taken place. One might construe that bringing up my potentially being sidetracked was a hypothetical not having to do with this conversation. One could construe that since you did not seek clarification, certainly not via a question, hereâŚ
Until a topic of discussion is resolved, which, to me, is when everyone in the discussion has reached an accepted agreement, then every further discussion point is a sidetrack. To me, changing topics or âmoving pastâ unresolved topics has not actually âmoved onâ; âmoved onâ, to me, does not occur successfully until agreement and acceptance are reached first. But I obviously look at and see things very, very differently than people here. Most people may well concur that moving past unresolved issues or topics is âmoving onâ in life, but I certainly do not.
then either one did not know or one did not care to know. One could construe that the recommendations made by some are not followed by that same some.
It could be construed that following oneâs own recommendations is a more powerful lesson than recommending to others that they do what one does not.
So, it can be construed that some things are left unknown by both parties, since here no clarification was sought.
It seems we are, construably, on the verge of going in circles and having a non-conversation, mutually chosen at least up to this moment. Unfortunately, it can be construed that I am less than impressed by either your consistency in your own following of your recommendations or the effectiveness of your âresponsesâ. I am also not a fan of what can easily be construed as passive-aggressive non-assertions like Even here, it could be construed that your superiority complex shines bright. And while it can be construed that this was interesting as a one time âexperimentâ, I would prefer interlocutors who do what they suggest others do. Given that this may, however, be this-conversation bound, we may very well meet and discuss things in other threads.
Given that this thread was for the purposes of preparing a debate in another thread - debates being things you consider problematic in general - and we had moved on from that topic and the debate had begun elsewhere - it can be construed that my ending here will not make you angry since you never feel anger.
Iâll leave you here, in this thread. Perhaps someone else, a third party, will come along and you can continue with the topic we never agreed upon nor, it seems, moved on from. May you find what you seek with this topic.
There is not a human being that should âfollowâ me. i am no ârole modelâ, so why would it matter what I do or do not do here.
Again, you are absolutely free to construe absolutely anything you like. However, and again, do not be surprised that what you have construed could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect or partly False, partly Wrong, partly Inaccurate, and/or partly Incorrect.
Again, I will suggest and recommend that if you do not want your constructions to be false or wrong, then seek out and obtain actual clarification first.
But you are going back to absurdism.
I did not care if what I construed was False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect. Therefore, I did not want to seek out and obtain actual clarification first.
I have never said absolutely anyone has to seek out and obtain clarification before they presume, conclude, construe, or believe absolutely anything. I have just repeatedly recommended and suggested that if anyone does not want to be âwrongâ, then just seek out and obtain clarification first, prior to all assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, and that if they always did that, then they could never be âwrongâ ever again.
Sometimes, I say âwrongâ things to âseeâ who is observant and watching
Again, you are absolutely free to construe absolutely anything you like.
If that is what seems to be the case, then okay. That is perfectly fine with me.
What do you mean by, âit can be construed that you are [doing whatever]?
-
Of course, others could construe âthatâ. Again, absolutely anyone is absolutely free to construe absolutely anything.
-
If you want to or do not want to construe that you, yourself, is less than impressed with absolutely anything, then you are, also, absolutely free to do so. I would, however, suggest that you already know what you are impressed with and/or not impressed with. But, if you have not yet been able to conclude what you are, more or less, impressed with, then okay. Maybe you construe and/or conclude later on.
LOL Do you think I really care what you are âa fan ofâ or ânot a fan ofâ?
You are not at school now. You really canât seem to âshake offâ that superiority complex of yours. But, maybe working with children for quite some time has left you feeling superior to others as well.
Look, you never sought out absolutely any clarification at all in regards to what I actually meant when I said those words, so, again, you are absolutely free to presume, construe, interpret, and/or conclude absolutely anything of your choosing. But, again, do not be surprised if what you construe is Wrong or partly wrong.
Great. Go and look for them.
-
If you really would prefer interlocutors who do what they suggest others do, and you have already concluded that I do not, then why are you still interlocuting with me?
-
You had already claimed that I was, ONCE AGAIN, on your ignore list, but yet you are still here, even after this latest revelation of yours.
Okay.
If this is what you really want to believe, then this is perfectly fine and okay with me.
What I sought in this topic, I found a long, long time ago.
In Godâs divine-autistic language, even something as simple as saying âGood day!â can turn into an hours-long clarification misery. Not sure why God thinks that such a communication breakdown would solve all the worldâs problems instead of adding to them, but Godâs ways are mysterious.
Why say, âGood dayâ? Why not âjust goâ instead? Why spend an âhours-longâ explanation to âjust leaveâ?
To the unprepared and uninitiated, that is for sure.
To the rest of us, Godâs way is already well understood and known.
How many people from the future are these ârest of usâ?
When in the future are you referring to exactly?
I just said future, why assume there should be an exact when? Why assume that âGood day!â is said when leaving when it can also be a greeting? I donât like your assumptions God.
I know.
This is an absurd question.
I was not assuming there should be an exact when.
I never assumed that it could not also be said when greeting.
You still keep assuming Iâm meaning things when I am certainly not.
Who cares?
Is it possible that you have been wrongly assuming that another has assumed some things that they have not?
Could it be that youâve wrongly assumed that I do this?
No.
You obviously just asked me a question based on you assuming something that I do not do. So, I have not assumed any such thing. As your very question provided the proof. And, as always, no one can refute proof.