Passing by Posted August 12, 2001 Share Posted August 12, 2001 I see your advice is always very intelligent, why do you always have to write a whole essay about everything?? Link to post Share on other sites
sparkle Posted August 12, 2001 Share Posted August 12, 2001 It would be nice if you used the same nickname from now on. Otherwise, it makes people think you're up to no good. Did you change the nickname because you were afraid that once Tony knew you were asking him this dumb question, he may not take the time to offer you his wonderful advice? And about Tony supposedly writing a "whole essay", I'm pretty sure he will keep his reply to your post pretty short once he sees this post. Link to post Share on other sites
Passing by Posted August 12, 2001 Share Posted August 12, 2001 I think I would just that lesson you just learned prominent in your mind is answering your question.I don't think you should assume things about people on any level. You just cut yourself off from the truth that way. Even if the assumption is right sometime, it will never be all the time and it will always color your perceptions until you will not be able to tell those perceptions from reality! Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted August 12, 2001 Share Posted August 12, 2001 YOU ASK: "why do you always have to write a whole essay about everything?? If you read all my posts, you would see that some are very short, others are very long. If you used common sense, you would already know that the length of a reply depends on how much verbage is takes to handle the specific posts. Some explanations are very lengthy while others are only once sentence. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted August 12, 2001 Share Posted August 12, 2001 It is mandatory that our assertions be tied to certain thoughts which we perceive as reality when in fact if we queried our mind sufficiently we would find that despite all our efforts, it is useless for that. I particular have searched for certain results, omitted facts and events, in the desire to achieve a delictate balance between the truth here and the speculation which sets apart events from ideas and fashions our future. Political leaders and other strong social and environmental factors have contributed to the stripped down version of what I call the translytical paradigm of delitatusulum which, in turn, has fasulated the condulusional fusiasalism to the point that foilutrilogismical forces have entered the cosmic hallogemastical populeriasm and fusiologed the deiter. I concur that your pouqulisms are formiropulated but in no way would I jump to the conclusion that sparkle is sweuptacaluctated or otherwise erythurapanvistically challenged or hallusinationalistically fortumasticated. This would just make no sense to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts