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).
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.