|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Fri May 17th, 2013 06:03 pm||
I was having fun until this:
That is exactly how.
Seriously, to me, the symbols only indicate a possible intention to be vague, or precise, or to misdirect, or to accurately direct, in each case, each symbol being used by any power to employ a symbol.
I suppose a person could drop a box of symbols, and they fall on the floor, and the arrangement could then be considered vague.
Terms are symbols, how can a "term" be vague?
That is a question seeking a specific answer, and as far as my intention was, and still is, concerned, I seek a specific answer.
You then offer a vague answer as an example of a vague answer?
I offer a possible case of symbols being vague, as the person who arranged the symbols carried the symbols in a box, and then the box is dropped, and the symbols are then arranged randomly.
If a person then picks up the randomly arranged symbols, places them in order, he could arrange the symbols at a point on a road, where cars can go very fast on the road, on a blind hill, where a bridge that was a bridge is now a broken bridge, which is now a certain drop to certain death for anyone traveling fast over the blind hill on the road with the arrangement of symbols.
The person could arrange the symbols in such a way as to say:
STOP, the bridge is out, DANGER
If you are going to argue about how vague those symbols are, then you can do so without need of me.
To me that is an illustration of how symbols can be arranged so as to avoid hazardous ambiguity.
More to the point, those same symbols can be arranged in this way:
Free Money 10 miles ahead
I take it you separate social parasites from 'tools' they use. Yet I do not, because for me there is no point in structuring it.
I don't understand how you arrive at the perception that I "separate social parasites from 'tools' they use.
I was asking for a tool that may be used by a parasite in parasitism.
What I'm trying to say is that this information is of secondary importance. If at any point you feel there is a requirement for this kind of precision - you probably expect your reader to already understand what makes 'wrong' wrong and 'right' right. Am I correct?
I was trying to ask you if there is a tool used by a parasite in parasitism.
I am also writing a book to compare viewpoints I have with viewpoints other people have, and if other people see "right" and "wrong" similarly to the way I see "right" and "wrong" then that will be measurable as being that, in that way, or it may not, and then I'll find out that it is not that way.
Trust me, I'm not evading answering your questions by adding some examples, this is just the way I do consolidation. I think I need to first understand your principles outside of just throwing out your viewpoints for people's judgement, otherwise me throwing in examples I can throw in will be irrelevant.
If you prefer not to provide a tool used by a parasite in parasitism, then I can fail to know of such a tool used by a parasite in parasitism according to you.
I was smiling as a result of reading your words, it was fun, thanks.