Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to. Prove it then.
a) Prove is in the pudding/putting, hence living (live) within all (al) implying all putting one into being.
b) The issue...wanting prove from another, while ignoring the need of being (life) put (inception towards death) aka of being thrust; instigated; inspired to adapt etc. The prove you seek implies credibility aka your credit/creed/belief aka your choice to hold onto suggested information by another, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through each ones perception.
In short...you want; I describe need.
You believe this assertion already, so you believe SOMETHING.
a) Assert aka ad (towards) serere (to join together)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/assert Nature sets apart, which I describe by separating what others join together (consent to suggestion).
b) Some/sem - "semblance" implies like one another, which ignores being differentiated from one another, hence as each thing (partial) within everything (whole).
c) While further taking apart "assert" and "some"...what do I believe? What if BELIEF (holding together) inverts RELIEF (setting apart)? Notice also that I don't attack or defend any beliefs; only rip to shreds believing aka holding onto, because that contradicts the need (dying) to let go (living).
you still post
About free-will-of-choice: Post Score (0)...
If what you say was true, why are you still alive?
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...I rip apart what others are saying by describing the implication of turning against one another.
b) Still; adjective -"motionless, stable, fixed, stationary"...that's living in denial.
You have a really odd view
Being implies odd (life) within even (inception towards death)...a jew evens the odds among gentiles by inverting choice with chance. Within all perceivable; each one has choice...from the suggestions by few, many can take a chance...for the price of giving up choice.
Thank you for inspiring me to be "real odd"...instead of joining fake equality.
artificially and wrongly connects words and life and death.
Living within process of dying implies natural; connecting together what nature separates by logos (words) and logic (right vs wrong) implies artificial.
You think doing things everyday people do will kill you.
Killing implies taking from one another...suggestion tempts consent to be given before taking "nothing" in return. It's ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) which destroys ones life and any other life connected to it. Consenting represents a suicidal tendency; which shapes suggested into a genocidal aversion of reality.
For example: "kill yourself" represents the temptation for ones suicidal consent, which then transforms destroying self into destroying others connected to one, hence the fall of civilization being foreshadowed; accompanied, and accomplished by suicide aka self harm.
And you base these conclusions upon..... ETYMOLOGY?? Wow. Just wow.
The base I describe moves...hence dissolution; not conclusion. It's LOGY, which tricks many to seek conclusions, while ignoring ETYMOS (real aka ones response to all) during dis (life) solution (inception towards death).
From the alchemical perspective...sound implies base; words represent ingredients mixed together. Being implies essence struggling to sustain self within substance...which many ignore, because few are mixing them together within the cauldron of logic.
Why don't you base what you believe will kill you based on what the moon looks like?
a) The base of will(want) implies need, hence ones struggle to want (living) within need (dying) aka ones adaptation to balance as free WILL of choice.
b) Being implies differential (perception) within equation (perceivable)...it's looking/locking onto suggested, which makes differentials look alike.
Like if your coffee mug has a certain amount of coffee in it, you "die"?
a) Liking coffee (want) over tea (not want), while ignoring thirst (need) diminishes living during the process of dying.
b) There can be only ONE...it's ignoring this by counting one another, which permits few to amount many into unwashed masses.
c) Living implies within the process of dying..."you die" tempts one to ignore perceivable origin of life for suggested outcome of life.
Free will of choice does not need to resist that. Why should it? If anything, rebutting and defending would make it stronger, not weaker.
Attack and defense binds "free" will of choice into a conflict aka a versus/verto - "to turn"...an inversion of choice for the chance of winning vs losing. Gambling. Being implies growth (life) during loss (inception towards death) aka choice within balance...not a gamble of chance.
Resistance is fertile, hence only resisting temptation grows resistance, while falling for temptation ignores resisting, hence establishing the path of least resistance, which continues to tempt ones ignorance more and more, hence the want to accumulate, and the reluctance to let go.
Another? Another what? Another idea? Another person?
One. All (oneness) separating each one from one "another"...
Plus, you didn't answer the question. Should people believe in Jesus??
a) Plus (inception) Minus (death), hence being alive implying in-between (±) aka ones position (life) during negation (inception towards death) aka as above/so below.
b) Quest implies towards outcome, hence you waiting for a suggested answer, while ignoring perceivable origin aka quest-ION (action)...letting go of the quest allows one to discern self as re-action aka responding being within enacting nature.
c) To believe implies holding onto; jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies holding onto self...the latter collectivizes everyone else into a plural (you; we; people), and should vs shouldn't + believe vs disbelief are the resulting conflicts of reason among those who hold onto a side.
Within nature letting go of jesus (i am) allows one to discern self as christ (anointed one). Christ implies each one...jesus implies another one. Christ allows each ones self discernment; while jesus tempts one to shirk response-ability onto another aka onto a savior.
Jesus and french "je suis" are DIFFERENT.
Ah...so after preaching likeness so often throughout your responses, it's now about differences? And writing different in uppercase to the guy persistently contradicting likeness by separating differences...that didn't fell funny to you? Anyway...
Jesus used the same phrase “I AM” in seven declarations about Himself. In all seven, He combines I AM with tremendous metaphors which express His saving relationship toward the world. All appear in the book of John. They are I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).
The issue isn't about the differences or likeness between jesus and je suis, but about ones lack of self discernment when taking possession over self as "me; myself or I", which brands everyone else as "you"...that's what makes differences alike. Jesus as the archetype and je suis as the concealed revelation aka sleight of hand are used to distract one from discerning self.
Do you believe that a drawing of a mug IS a mug?
To believe tempts one to ignore ongoing line for temporal drawing. Motion WAS before matter can suggest to each other what IS. Inspiration allows one to draw from; information represents the drawing one holds onto mentally and physically.
So why would you believe that those 2 words are the same?
a) Sound implies same; words represent differences held together, hence shaped alike.
b) There can be only one. It's reasoning about suggested which establishes dualism (2) within one (1).
c) If there can be only one, then Jesus to hold onto and je suis (i am) aka the one holding onto; imply the same origin...motion giving out matter, which matter ignores by holding onto one (je suis) another (jesus).
False. If that were true, He would not be called Jesus Christ , as that would then be a contradiction.
a) True vs false implies circular thinking, hence ones de-nial (NAIL) of being moved across (A CROSS) a straight line.
b) Neither the father; nor the son; nor the holy ghost made the call..."in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies another suggesting in the name of (in nomine) to tempt ones consent to put Jesus + Christ together, hence nailing self to the cross aka denying perceivable moving perception across.
c) If implies then...true vs false reasoning contradicts that.
d) The fundamental contradiction...ALL doesn't cALL anyone, it's few who tempt many with a call of duty aka a summoning/invocation/on demand order etc.
e) As for HE...he (motion) + she (momentum) trans-form into matter. She implies s(plit)he; woman implies wo(mb)man; female implies fe(minine)male...being implies as above/so below, hence in-between (matter) male (motion) and female (momentum) nature. Only in-between can there be intercourse for off-spring aka for yet another resurrection of each anointed one (christ).
Jesus does NOT "tempt" me
"Me; myself; or I" are based on one taking possession over self aka I AM (je suis; jesus)...taking possession tempts potential (life) to ignore procession (inception towards death). The NOT implies ones de-nial aka the NAIL tempting potential to ignore procession A CROSS.
From your perspective..."does not" contradict that God does. One can only redo self within all doing. "does not" implies ones denial, which others are tempting one into.
"Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew)"...Is this a bad thing? If so, why do you believe it is a bad thing?
Good vs bad reasoning aside...holding onto self (I), while collectivizing others (YOU), inverts all setting each one free from one another. It denies oneness; it denies that there can be only one. I and YOU destroy one-self. Notice furthermore the imbalanced distribution of one taking possession over self as I, which shapes every other ones potential into a YOU, which is why each YOU (phonetic jew) has more potential, then anyone's possessions could ever handle.
If i understood you right, you are saying that your word analysis will teach people things and reveal knowledge? Did i get you right?
a) Understood implies your choice to "stand-under" another as student (slave) under teacher (master)...my suggestion tempts your consent to empower me, while submitting yourself. I try to describe how this works and how only ones free will of choice can resist that temptation of binding self...not whatever anyone else is suggesting.
b) Your want to understand and become a student under a teacher implies a synthesis of your consent and my suggestion. Doing that tempts you to ignore to discern self as analysis (perception) within solution (perceivable). Solution (inception towards death) forces analysis (life) to adapt...denial or consent don't matter to motion.
c) Knowledge implies being (matter) at the ledge (momentum) of known (motion)...understanding tempts matter to stand-under each other, while holding onto suggested information and thereby ignoring the momentum (ledge) of motion (known).
d) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right The rhetoric "getting it right" tempts one to ignore being (life) given right (inception towards death) aka rite of passage. Your circular thinking (right vs wrong reasoning) prevents you from thinking straight, hence the lack of righteousness.
So you are a WordAnalyst.
Analysis (perception) during solution (perceivable)...analyzing synthesis (suggested words). Reasoning about words further synthesizes, while muddling (mixing) ones analytical perception within perceivable solution.
To be implies the LETTER (free will of choice consenting) of each word (suggested by another ones free will of choice)...I try to make it harder for a letter to bind self to the words of another by taking apart crafted spells.
Who believes that word analysis is better than rebutting and defending.
Better vs worse aka rebutting vs confirming aka attack vs defense aka believing vs disbelieving...a synthetic conflict. Using implication (if/then) instead of reason (vs) sustains dis (life) solution (inception towards death) so that analytics may continue a while longer.
Following WordAnalsysism rather than nature and change.
Change (perceivable) forces adaptation (perception), hence each ones struggle to resist (living) temptation (dying)...suggested words tempt ones consent to follow towards end of sentence in accordance with the letter.
getting all bent over what a word looks like is absurd.
Being implies bending (life) within a line (inception towards death)...bending over implies circular logic aka ouroboros eating its own tail. Sound sentences instruments...words tempts instruments to wait for the end of sentence to respond.
"True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts"...It tempts people? Is this true or false?
Versus/verto - "to turn" tempts one to ignore being (life) moved straight (inception towards death). True vs false implies a circle (logic) shaped within a straight line. People implies multiple persons tempted together through logic into conflicts of reason.
Nature told me that logic and arguments is better than word breakdowns.
Aka it (perceivable) is using me (perception) to tell (suggestion) you (perception)... why use a middle-man aka a mediator aka media when the source is free for all?
But you are choosing a side.
That would contradict "free" will of choice.
Choosing to believe that your Word Games are better and will "help you live longer"
Believing implies shirking choice onto chance. Games implies gambling aka paying choice by taking chance. Help implies supporting (inception towards death) charges (life)...not helping one another by spending charges. It's the "fruit of ones labor", which others can re-charge by. Spending ones charges reduces ones labor during support.
a) Contra implies turning against another, which binds "free" will of choice together.
b) Both CONtradict and CONsistent implies "together", while being implies apart from one another, hence off-spring.
c) Exact implies ones EX-pression within all ACTion...suggested beliefs; methods and worldviews are suppressing that; if consented to.
Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature".
d) Self doesn't imply CON (together) but intercourse through another for the perpetuation of self by off-spring.
tl;dr: What I'm trying to describe isn't a belief; method or worldview, but the foundation within others are shaping beliefs; methods and worldviews to get control over one.
you are trying to get people's foundations to shape their beliefs?
Shape implies matter; foundation implies motion...believing implies holding onto matter, while ignoring motion. I try to break apart the matter others are mentally and physically holding onto so that the ignored move-ment of nature can be perceived without suggestive restrictions shaped by others.
people's OWN ideas
Matter cannot own anything within motion, since motion moves possessions out of the grasp of matter.
Few suggest ideas (idealism) to tempt many to hold onto ideas (idolatry)...hence getting owned aka possessed by suggested possessions.
Any idea tempts one to ignore that others are shaping (idealism); reshaping (revisionism) and contradicting (talmudic reasoning) whatever one holds onto...on the fly...from outside.
Ideas represent a remote control for idols held onto.
convince them
Again with the CON (together) shaping the (pluralism them), while ignoring to be a singular apart from one another.
You are not a "them"...joining "them" does not make you more than one. Counting others together as "them", while using the word "them" to speak in the name of others does not make you more than one...but if easily distracts anyone consenting to the suggestion thereof.
a) Prove is in the pudding/putting, hence living (live) within all (al) implying all putting one into being.
b) The issue...wanting prove from another, while ignoring the need of being (life) put (inception towards death) aka of being thrust; instigated; inspired to adapt etc. The prove you seek implies credibility aka your credit/creed/belief aka your choice to hold onto suggested information by another, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through each ones perception.
In short...you want; I describe need.
a) Assert aka ad (towards) serere (to join together)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/assert Nature sets apart, which I describe by separating what others join together (consent to suggestion).
b) Some/sem - "semblance" implies like one another, which ignores being differentiated from one another, hence as each thing (partial) within everything (whole).
c) While further taking apart "assert" and "some"...what do I believe? What if BELIEF (holding together) inverts RELIEF (setting apart)? Notice also that I don't attack or defend any beliefs; only rip to shreds believing aka holding onto, because that contradicts the need (dying) to let go (living).
About free-will-of-choice: Post Score (0)...
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...I rip apart what others are saying by describing the implication of turning against one another.
b) Still; adjective -"motionless, stable, fixed, stationary"...that's living in denial.
Being implies odd (life) within even (inception towards death)...a jew evens the odds among gentiles by inverting choice with chance. Within all perceivable; each one has choice...from the suggestions by few, many can take a chance...for the price of giving up choice.
Thank you for inspiring me to be "real odd"...instead of joining fake equality.
Living within process of dying implies natural; connecting together what nature separates by logos (words) and logic (right vs wrong) implies artificial.
Killing implies taking from one another...suggestion tempts consent to be given before taking "nothing" in return. It's ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) which destroys ones life and any other life connected to it. Consenting represents a suicidal tendency; which shapes suggested into a genocidal aversion of reality.
For example: "kill yourself" represents the temptation for ones suicidal consent, which then transforms destroying self into destroying others connected to one, hence the fall of civilization being foreshadowed; accompanied, and accomplished by suicide aka self harm.
The base I describe moves...hence dissolution; not conclusion. It's LOGY, which tricks many to seek conclusions, while ignoring ETYMOS (real aka ones response to all) during dis (life) solution (inception towards death).
From the alchemical perspective...sound implies base; words represent ingredients mixed together. Being implies essence struggling to sustain self within substance...which many ignore, because few are mixing them together within the cauldron of logic.
a) The base of will(want) implies need, hence ones struggle to want (living) within need (dying) aka ones adaptation to balance as free WILL of choice.
b) Being implies differential (perception) within equation (perceivable)...it's looking/locking onto suggested, which makes differentials look alike.
a) Liking coffee (want) over tea (not want), while ignoring thirst (need) diminishes living during the process of dying.
b) There can be only ONE...it's ignoring this by counting one another, which permits few to amount many into unwashed masses.
c) Living implies within the process of dying..."you die" tempts one to ignore perceivable origin of life for suggested outcome of life.
Attack and defense binds "free" will of choice into a conflict aka a versus/verto - "to turn"...an inversion of choice for the chance of winning vs losing. Gambling. Being implies growth (life) during loss (inception towards death) aka choice within balance...not a gamble of chance.
Resistance is fertile, hence only resisting temptation grows resistance, while falling for temptation ignores resisting, hence establishing the path of least resistance, which continues to tempt ones ignorance more and more, hence the want to accumulate, and the reluctance to let go.
Reason implies reluctance aka struggling against, implication inspires resistance within temptation.
One. All (oneness) separating each one from one "another"...
a) Plus (inception) Minus (death), hence being alive implying in-between (±) aka ones position (life) during negation (inception towards death) aka as above/so below.
b) Quest implies towards outcome, hence you waiting for a suggested answer, while ignoring perceivable origin aka quest-ION (action)...letting go of the quest allows one to discern self as re-action aka responding being within enacting nature.
c) To believe implies holding onto; jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies holding onto self...the latter collectivizes everyone else into a plural (you; we; people), and should vs shouldn't + believe vs disbelief are the resulting conflicts of reason among those who hold onto a side.
Within nature letting go of jesus (i am) allows one to discern self as christ (anointed one). Christ implies each one...jesus implies another one. Christ allows each ones self discernment; while jesus tempts one to shirk response-ability onto another aka onto a savior.
Ah...so after preaching likeness so often throughout your responses, it's now about differences? And writing different in uppercase to the guy persistently contradicting likeness by separating differences...that didn't fell funny to you? Anyway...
Jesus used the same phrase “I AM” in seven declarations about Himself. In all seven, He combines I AM with tremendous metaphors which express His saving relationship toward the world. All appear in the book of John. They are I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).
The issue isn't about the differences or likeness between jesus and je suis, but about ones lack of self discernment when taking possession over self as "me; myself or I", which brands everyone else as "you"...that's what makes differences alike. Jesus as the archetype and je suis as the concealed revelation aka sleight of hand are used to distract one from discerning self.
To believe tempts one to ignore ongoing line for temporal drawing. Motion WAS before matter can suggest to each other what IS. Inspiration allows one to draw from; information represents the drawing one holds onto mentally and physically.
a) Sound implies same; words represent differences held together, hence shaped alike.
b) There can be only one. It's reasoning about suggested which establishes dualism (2) within one (1).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Spice-girls-2-become-1-lyrics (A dream of you and me together...Say you believe it)
c) If there can be only one, then Jesus to hold onto and je suis (i am) aka the one holding onto; imply the same origin...motion giving out matter, which matter ignores by holding onto one (je suis) another (jesus).
a) True vs false implies circular thinking, hence ones de-nial (NAIL) of being moved across (A CROSS) a straight line.
b) Neither the father; nor the son; nor the holy ghost made the call..."in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies another suggesting in the name of (in nomine) to tempt ones consent to put Jesus + Christ together, hence nailing self to the cross aka denying perceivable moving perception across.
c) If implies then...true vs false reasoning contradicts that.
d) The fundamental contradiction...ALL doesn't cALL anyone, it's few who tempt many with a call of duty aka a summoning/invocation/on demand order etc.
e) As for HE...he (motion) + she (momentum) trans-form into matter. She implies s(plit)he; woman implies wo(mb)man; female implies fe(minine)male...being implies as above/so below, hence in-between (matter) male (motion) and female (momentum) nature. Only in-between can there be intercourse for off-spring aka for yet another resurrection of each anointed one (christ).
"Me; myself; or I" are based on one taking possession over self aka I AM (je suis; jesus)...taking possession tempts potential (life) to ignore procession (inception towards death). The NOT implies ones de-nial aka the NAIL tempting potential to ignore procession A CROSS.
From your perspective..."does not" contradict that God does. One can only redo self within all doing. "does not" implies ones denial, which others are tempting one into.
Good vs bad reasoning aside...holding onto self (I), while collectivizing others (YOU), inverts all setting each one free from one another. It denies oneness; it denies that there can be only one. I and YOU destroy one-self. Notice furthermore the imbalanced distribution of one taking possession over self as I, which shapes every other ones potential into a YOU, which is why each YOU (phonetic jew) has more potential, then anyone's possessions could ever handle.
a) Understood implies your choice to "stand-under" another as student (slave) under teacher (master)...my suggestion tempts your consent to empower me, while submitting yourself. I try to describe how this works and how only ones free will of choice can resist that temptation of binding self...not whatever anyone else is suggesting.
b) Your want to understand and become a student under a teacher implies a synthesis of your consent and my suggestion. Doing that tempts you to ignore to discern self as analysis (perception) within solution (perceivable). Solution (inception towards death) forces analysis (life) to adapt...denial or consent don't matter to motion.
c) Knowledge implies being (matter) at the ledge (momentum) of known (motion)...understanding tempts matter to stand-under each other, while holding onto suggested information and thereby ignoring the momentum (ledge) of motion (known).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Aerosmith-livin-on-the-edge-lyrics
d) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right The rhetoric "getting it right" tempts one to ignore being (life) given right (inception towards death) aka rite of passage. Your circular thinking (right vs wrong reasoning) prevents you from thinking straight, hence the lack of righteousness.
Analysis (perception) during solution (perceivable)...analyzing synthesis (suggested words). Reasoning about words further synthesizes, while muddling (mixing) ones analytical perception within perceivable solution.
To be implies the LETTER (free will of choice consenting) of each word (suggested by another ones free will of choice)...I try to make it harder for a letter to bind self to the words of another by taking apart crafted spells.
Better vs worse aka rebutting vs confirming aka attack vs defense aka believing vs disbelieving...a synthetic conflict. Using implication (if/then) instead of reason (vs) sustains dis (life) solution (inception towards death) so that analytics may continue a while longer.
Change (perceivable) forces adaptation (perception), hence each ones struggle to resist (living) temptation (dying)...suggested words tempt ones consent to follow towards end of sentence in accordance with the letter.
Being implies bending (life) within a line (inception towards death)...bending over implies circular logic aka ouroboros eating its own tail. Sound sentences instruments...words tempts instruments to wait for the end of sentence to respond.
Versus/verto - "to turn" tempts one to ignore being (life) moved straight (inception towards death). True vs false implies a circle (logic) shaped within a straight line. People implies multiple persons tempted together through logic into conflicts of reason.
Tale/del - "to recount, count"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/tale Nature doesn't count, since it's all one. Counting one another makes one accountable to another, which is what few exploit to become accountants of many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism
Aka it (perceivable) is using me (perception) to tell (suggestion) you (perception)... why use a middle-man aka a mediator aka media when the source is free for all?
That would contradict "free" will of choice.
Believing implies shirking choice onto chance. Games implies gambling aka paying choice by taking chance. Help implies supporting (inception towards death) charges (life)...not helping one another by spending charges. It's the "fruit of ones labor", which others can re-charge by. Spending ones charges reduces ones labor during support.
EXACTLY. Your beliefs, methods, worldview is SELF-CONTRADICTORY. It is logically consistent and wholly indefensible.
a) Contra implies turning against another, which binds "free" will of choice together.
b) Both CONtradict and CONsistent implies "together", while being implies apart from one another, hence off-spring.
c) Exact implies ones EX-pression within all ACTion...suggested beliefs; methods and worldviews are suppressing that; if consented to.
Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature".
d) Self doesn't imply CON (together) but intercourse through another for the perpetuation of self by off-spring.
tl;dr: What I'm trying to describe isn't a belief; method or worldview, but the foundation within others are shaping beliefs; methods and worldviews to get control over one.
So if i understand you, you are trying to get people's foundations to shape their beliefs?
Use people's OWN ideas to convince them of something?
Shape implies matter; foundation implies motion...believing implies holding onto matter, while ignoring motion. I try to break apart the matter others are mentally and physically holding onto so that the ignored move-ment of nature can be perceived without suggestive restrictions shaped by others.
Matter cannot own anything within motion, since motion moves possessions out of the grasp of matter.
Few suggest ideas (idealism) to tempt many to hold onto ideas (idolatry)...hence getting owned aka possessed by suggested possessions.
Any idea tempts one to ignore that others are shaping (idealism); reshaping (revisionism) and contradicting (talmudic reasoning) whatever one holds onto...on the fly...from outside.
Ideas represent a remote control for idols held onto.
Again with the CON (together) shaping the (pluralism them), while ignoring to be a singular apart from one another.
You are not a "them"...joining "them" does not make you more than one. Counting others together as "them", while using the word "them" to speak in the name of others does not make you more than one...but if easily distracts anyone consenting to the suggestion thereof.