think good for them, as generally they are right in addressing the real or new issue of the display of a “war of words” rather than staying on topic to find a worthy solution to justify all the time spent.

Many humans attempt to pretend to be smart by doing things this way and confusing people. But in some cases there is no confusion with the originator of the subject and they will actually challenge their critics to prove that their original topic or concept is impossible, ine

Have you ever happened onto an online forum and read some of the threads and posts and thought that they were too attacking? Did it turn you off and make you want to not participate, perhaps you read a bit and then clicked out? Well then, you are not alone; this happens even on scientific, innovation and industry forums. Often you will have an interesting topic and the subject degrades into personal attacks, it is a lot like politics on TV and the tit-for-tat sound and fury, which is so prevalent in our species.

Often you will notice that the parties discussing such topics will have discussed many cross-over uses or innovative theories on a concept or subject. Sometimes they end up superceding the known definitions of the subject and start arguing over points of contention of analogies and definitions or descriptions. You keep reading as the topic is fascinating yet once you start to reach the end you realize you have basically been reading 25 pages of BS semantics and are no where near getting to the bottom of the subject or original topic; why does this happen? Well it has a lot to do with the human mind; you see any human can spout their retained or memorized knowledge, run around proving they know something that they committed to memory and call themselves smart? That is not thinking, perhaps they might be able to occasionally use such information to solve problems, but the true breakthroughs come from ditching all the preconceived notions and memorized materials and asking the question.

Although rare sometimes you will see someone break out of these long debates babbling on signifying nothing and they will say something like:

“I asked the question, your answer I do not accept, as I still know that the proposed concept is worthy of exploration, whether or not your memorized definitions lead you to believe they do not is immaterial.”

When you read such logic you wonder, who is this person and you think good for them, as generally they are right in addressing the real or new issue of the display of a “war of words” rather than staying on topic to find a worthy solution to justify all the time spent.

Many humans attempt to pretend to be smart by doing things this way and confusing people. But in some cases there is no confusion with the originator of the subject and they will actually challenge their critics to prove that their original topic or concept is impossible, ine

so prevalent in our species.

Often you will notice that the parties discussing such topics will have discussed many cross-over uses or innovative theories on a concept or subject. Sometimes they end up superceding the known definitions of the subject and start arguing over points of contention of analogies and definitions or descriptions. You keep reading as the topic is fascinating yet once you start to reach the end you realize you have basically been reading 25 pages of BS semantics and are no where near getting to the bottom of the subject or original topic; why does this happen? Well it has a lot to do with the human mind; you see any human can spout their retained or memorized knowledge, run around proving they know something that they committed to memory and call themselves smart? That is not thinking, perhaps they might be able to occasionally use such information to solve problems, but the true breakthroughs come from ditching all the preconceived notions and memorized materials and asking the question.

Although rare sometimes you will see someone break out of these long debates babbling on signifying nothing and they will say something like:

“I asked the question, your answer I do not accept, as I still know that the proposed concept is worthy of exploration, whether or not your memorized definitions lead you to believe they do not is immaterial.”

When you read such logic you wonder, who is this person and you think good for them, as generally they are right in addressing the real or new issue of the display of a “war of words” rather than staying on topic to find a worthy solution to justify all the time spent.

Many humans attempt to pretend to be smart by doing things this way and confusing people. But in some cases there is no confusion with the originator of the subject and they will actually challenge their critics to prove that their original topic or concept is impossible, ine

mantics and are no where near getting to the bottom of the subject or original topic; why does this happen? Well it has a lot to do with the human mind; you see any human can spout their retained or memorized knowledge, run around proving they know something that they committed to memory and call themselves smart? That is not thinking, perhaps they might be able to occasionally use such information to solve problems, but the true breakthroughs come from ditching all the preconceived notions and memorized materials and asking the question.

Although rare sometimes you will see someone break out of these long debates babbling on signifying nothing and they will say something like:

“I asked the question, your answer I do not accept, as I still know that the proposed concept is worthy of exploration, whether or not your memorized definitions lead you to believe they do not is immaterial.”

When you read such logic you wonder, who is this person and you think good for them, as generally they are right in addressing the real or new issue of the display of a “war of words” rather than staying on topic to find a worthy solution to justify all the time spent.

Many humans attempt to pretend to be smart by doing things this way and confusing people. But in some cases there is no confusion with the originator of the subject and they will actually challenge their critics to prove that their original topic or concept is impossible, ine

otions and memorized materials and asking the question.

Although rare sometimes you will see someone break out of these long debates babbling on signifying nothing and they will say something like:

“I asked the question, your answer I do not accept, as I still know that the proposed concept is worthy of exploration, whether or not your memorized definitions lead you to believe they do not is immaterial.”

When you read such logic you wonder, who is this person and you think good for them, as generally they are right in addressing the real or new issue of the display of a “war of words” rather than staying on topic to find a worthy solution to justify all the time spent.

Many humans attempt to pretend to be smart by doing things this way and confusing people. But in some cases there is no confusion with the originator of the subject and they will actually challenge their critics to prove that their original topic or concept is impossible, ine

think good for them, as generally they are right in addressing the real or new issue of the display of a “war of words” rather than staying on topic to find a worthy solution to justify all the time spent.

Many humans attempt to pretend to be smart by doing things this way and confusing people. But in some cases there is no confusion with the originator of the subject and they will actually challenge their critics to prove that their original topic or concept is impossible, inefficient or an unworthy innovation. Additionally challenging their critics using all their worldly knowledge that the idea or concept is not sound.

It is amazing how difficult it is to press on against adversity of human minutia to put forth a new concept, however if you are one willing to stick your neck out and have a new idea, I know someone who will listen and discuss it with you? Think on this.