Flat (want) vs Round (not want) both based on consenting to the suggestion thereof; while ignoring perceived need aka suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need)..."sweet dreams are made of these"..."who am I to disagree?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
a) if sound exists before choice can shape suggested judgement of smart out of it; then why are we saying "sound smart" when we represent a response to sound?
b) SM'ART, noun - "quick"...as form (life) within flow (inception towards death); it's the velocity of ongoing flow communicating itself towards the resistance of temporary form that implies "quick".
does not make
"not" implies nothing; which translates the above into "does nothing make"; which ignores that something within everything cannot perceived nothing.
Your choice defines how you respond to what is written...need (perceived inspiration) or want (suggested information). Nature does not suggest information; it moves everything within to communicate inspiration towards perceiving senses.
Suggested information is based on choice shaping it out of perceived; then suggesting it as temptation towards your choice of wanting or not wanting it; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceived inspiration.
When you choose to accuse me; then it implies you consenting to me as the source of suggested information; which you chose to not want. You are being deceived to view the world through the lens of a conflict (want vs not want). This conflict is branded "reasoning". Instead of reason (want vs not want) try implication (if/then)...the former implies imbalance (want); the latter implies balance (need).
In short...disinformation doesn't exist until you choose to consent to suggested information; which then allows those suggesting it to contradict it (disinformation).
Bad implies versus good; which a) represents a rebranding of want vs not want (reason) and b) is caused by consenting to suggested information by the choice of others; hence submitting to suggested or having "faith" towards suggested.
Choice submitting to suggested choices by others represents RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; which ignores the original bond under natural law aka balance/choice...not choice vs choice.
Choice represent the response to perceived balance (need/want); while the suggested choices of others (want or not want) represents the temptation to ignore need (self sustenance of life) for want (temptation luring towards death).
This is not up for debate.
a) not implies your consent to suggested "nothing" for which you ignore perceived everything.
b) you agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) over suggested information is what represents the conflict (debate). I neither suggested information; nor did I consented to any conflicts of reason. I simply adapt to perceived inspiration for the sustenance of self.
c) when you proclaim "this" is not; then "this" implies something; which you proclaim to be nothing. A self contradiction based on ignorance towards everything perceived.
Flat (want) vs Round (not want) both based on consenting to the suggestion thereof; while ignoring perceived need aka suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need)..."sweet dreams are made of these"..."who am I to disagree?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg
Trying to sound smart does not make you smart.
a) if sound exists before choice can shape suggested judgement of smart out of it; then why are we saying "sound smart" when we represent a response to sound?
b) SM'ART, noun - "quick"...as form (life) within flow (inception towards death); it's the velocity of ongoing flow communicating itself towards the resistance of temporary form that implies "quick".
"not" implies nothing; which translates the above into "does nothing make"; which ignores that something within everything cannot perceived nothing.
Accuse you being of, I.
Your choice defines how you respond to what is written...need (perceived inspiration) or want (suggested information). Nature does not suggest information; it moves everything within to communicate inspiration towards perceiving senses.
Suggested information is based on choice shaping it out of perceived; then suggesting it as temptation towards your choice of wanting or not wanting it; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceived inspiration.
When you choose to accuse me; then it implies you consenting to me as the source of suggested information; which you chose to not want. You are being deceived to view the world through the lens of a conflict (want vs not want). This conflict is branded "reasoning". Instead of reason (want vs not want) try implication (if/then)...the former implies imbalance (want); the latter implies balance (need).
In short...disinformation doesn't exist until you choose to consent to suggested information; which then allows those suggesting it to contradict it (disinformation).
I'm accusing you of acting in bad faith. This is not up for debate.
Bad implies versus good; which a) represents a rebranding of want vs not want (reason) and b) is caused by consenting to suggested information by the choice of others; hence submitting to suggested or having "faith" towards suggested.
Choice submitting to suggested choices by others represents RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; which ignores the original bond under natural law aka balance/choice...not choice vs choice.
Choice represent the response to perceived balance (need/want); while the suggested choices of others (want or not want) represents the temptation to ignore need (self sustenance of life) for want (temptation luring towards death).
a) not implies your consent to suggested "nothing" for which you ignore perceived everything.
b) you agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) over suggested information is what represents the conflict (debate). I neither suggested information; nor did I consented to any conflicts of reason. I simply adapt to perceived inspiration for the sustenance of self.
c) when you proclaim "this" is not; then "this" implies something; which you proclaim to be nothing. A self contradiction based on ignorance towards everything perceived.