To believe implies choosing to hold onto a suggestion by another, while ignoring that nature moves, and therefore cannot be held onto.

Wrong. Artifical. Anti-natural. Conflicting.

I can naturally focus on moving nature AND your artifical "suggestions" at the SAME TIME.

Using implication (if/then) over reason (correct vs incorrect) allows one to notice for example...in (within) cor (heart) rect/reg (to move in a straight line), hence life being moved from inception towards death.

A) No it doesn't.

B) Yes it does.

A vs B. You picked a side. Side B. Admit it. You don't even live up to the worldview you promote. Admit your worldview is artifical and anti-nature and anti-motion. ADMIT IT!

Implication derives from motion...a circle implies a shape within motion.

Is this true or are you guessing again? Then why dont you say a square implies a shape? A triangle implies you are wrong?

Holding onto shapes tempts one to ignore being (life) moved (inception towards death).

So the only one holding shapes here is you. Thanks for admitting it.

Holding onto implies by ones free will of choice...letting go implies nature forcing adaptation from being. Try holding your breath for a while until nature forces you to let go.

Try admitting your worldview is anti-nature and anti-motion until your rejection of nature forces you to keep believing your worldview.

"word analysises"

Words imply a synthesis between suggested word and consenting letter aka ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape words by suggestion. This represents spell-craft.

You are the only one on this board who is easily controlled by your "spell craft".

Being implies apart from one another aka analysis (life) during thesis (inception towards death).

Yeah yeah everything to you is a matter of life and death. What a paranoid little guy. Do you also analyze words as you drink coffee, too????

"rebut and defend"

a) Using implication (if/then) prevents ones free will of choice from entering a conflict of reason (vs).

Oh? Is this true? Do you agree with this? Should i believe this?

b) Only withing balance (inception/death) can there be (life) choice...conflict implies imbalance for choice; no matter which sides ones chooses.

Only within IMbalance can there be choice. Balance is totally artifical, then. (One is using if and then!!)

Your claim implies that you are "CORRECT"", i.e. you ADMITTTT that you have PICKED a SIDE.

c) Confirm vs rebut and attack vs defend tempt both sides to consent to versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning against one another.

Is that true? If that is true, then why should i believe that is a bad thing?

See, i used "THEN". According to u/free-will-of-choice:

"Using implication (if/then) over reason (correct vs incorrect) allows one to notice "

I NOTICE!! YOU DO NOT !!

you choose to tinker with words like a child first knowing abt language.

Only within sound can words be shaped.

Not "only". See here: -> ObombBiden. I shaped a new word. Obama + Bomb + Biden.

Any questions, Word Analyst????

Few trick many with definitions to become DEAF PHONETICIANS aka deaf to phonics (sound).

So stop trying to trick us with your definitions.

Nature doesn't shape words...

This implies that nature cannot do something. So stop bashing nature, nature-hater. If nature wants to do it nature will do it, according to your beliefs. Right??

it moves instruments

What instruments?? Like a piano??

apart from one another within sound. Instruments implies "minds structured within" and sound/sanus implies "entire; whole; all"

Light implies entire, whole, all. Not sound. Sound implies that nature and reason are better than artificial and implication. Update yourself.

Sound allows knowledge...words tempt understanding aka standing-under those who suggest the meaning of words.

"you believe things to be true that make it so that you never face the fact that your beliefs are not correct."

a) Belief vs disbelief aka true vs false aka me vs you aka fact vs fiction aka correct vs incorrect...choosing either side binds ones free will of choice.

They bind free will of choice VS they dont bind. Your free will of choice is bound already. Reason implies freedom from word analysis, i.e. thinking clearly, thinking straight, i.e. your free will of choice is free.

b) No/not/nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo and represents suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested.

You saying the word "tempting" implies you are tempted already, to deny the perceivable (percivable: reason is natural, word dissecting/breakdown/analysis is artificial) for suggested (suggested: reason bad, etc.)

Nothing isn't in conflict with everything

And reason is not in conflict with implication or word analysis.

Yes, a scam.

Yes vs no cheats oneself out of balance.

Is that a fact? YES or NO?

Yes vs no does not cheat anything. Implication cheats one out of balance.

"Your worldview is not"

a) Mine vs yours tempts one to ignore that potential (life) during procession (inception towards death) cannot take into possession without destroying each other.

b) Nature WAS perceivable before each being within can suggest what it IS.

c) Not (nothing) implies the inversion of nature (everything).

"intellectual growth"

Only during loss (inception towards death) can there be growth (life

That implies that LOSING your implication and word analysis will GROW you. So LOSE it NOW. LOSE IT. LOSE IT!!! ONLY during LOSS can there be GROWTH!!!!!!!!

intellect/intelligo - "to understand" implies standing under one another, which suppresses growth.

Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"

constant denial

CON implies "together"...DE implies "divided; apart".

Freewill of choice: "My word analyses are true because they are true"

a) Free + will have to separated from one another; otherwise one couldn't be free from one another.

b) MY and TRUE tempt free will of choice to claim for self (my) while holding onto a side (true)...both of which bind free will of choice to others (you + false).

c) Analyzing the synthesis of words allows one to perceive the thesis of moving sound.

[So you know you are analyzing words.]

"I can't give you anything though"

All (perceivable) was given to each one (perception)...giving and taking each others suggestions tempts one to ignore that.

Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from being (life).

"I criticize you"

Critic/krinein - "to separate"...https://www.etymonline.com/word/critic hence every ONE being a critic to ONE another.

If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I", then every other one becomes a YOU (phonetic jew).

Lmao, I thought this was going to be about the buga sphere. Something im kinda surprised no one is talking about over here, but then again, i shouldnt be, anyone talking about ufos gets ridiculed here, and thats strange as hell for a conspiracy board.

I still havent made up my mind about the buga sphere, gut says its a fake, but I want to believe.

(anyone who hasnt heard about this thing, supposedly dropped out of the sky one day, recently)

Every single time.

• Why can everyone south of the equator see the exact same stars rotating in the same direction around the same fixed central point in the sky due south of them if they’re supposedly all looking in different directions?
• Why are the distances between degrees of latitude uniform and don’t grow exponentially away from the equator?
• Why does everyone on Earth get the same result for the Eratosthenes experiment, when people nearer the equator should get a much smaller circumference for the Earth than those nearer the poles?
• Come to think of it, was Eratosthenes part of the “round Earth” conspiracy?
• Surviving records show that the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians based their astronomical forecasts on calculations assuming the Earth is a globe. Did this conspiracy begin at the dawn of civilization, or are all ancient artifacts nothing but Victorian forgeries? If so, why has this never been detected by modern carbon-dating techniques?
• Why do arc lengths of given angles of longitude decrease rather than increase south of the equator?
• Why does the sun not rise in the northeast and set in the northwest, year round, for everyone on Earth?
• Why DOES the sun set, when the law of perspective states that the angular size of the sun’s altitude, like everything else, can’t become negative?
• Why does the sun’s angular size not change throughout the day or year, since it is “moving toward and away from us” and is “closer than we’re told”?
• Seriously, did you fall asleep during geometry class, or are you just completely demented?
• If you believe in zeteticism, why do you keep relying on magical and unprovable solutions, which can’t be shown to exist with your own eyes and clearly don’t exist at all? Apparently, zeteticism is just code for “make any old bullshit up and pretend it’s true.”
• If all photographs of a round Earth are a hoax, why not simply create photographs of a flat Earth?
• A property of mass is that it has gravitational force regardless of size. If the Earth did not have a gravitational field, wouldn’t that imply that the Earth doesn’t physically exist?
• Where is the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station located if the south “pole” is the whole circumference of the Earth?
• Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
• The idea of the Earth as a sphere has existed at least since the time of the ancient Greeks, long before NASA. What were their financial motives?
• What financial motives could NASA have, since their budget is still cut every year?
• How could the sun be a spotlight if it is a sphere? On the flat Earth, the light projection would have to be a semicircle.
• Why does the North Star goes to the horizon?
• Why do constellations appear to be different in the Southern and Northern hemispheres?
• Why is the Coriolis effect stronger near both poles, instead of stronger in the north and weaker in the south?
• If the circumferential south pole is preventing the oceans from pouring over the edge of the flat Earth, why didn’t the oceans disappear during the incredible amount of time it would have taken for that ice to form?
• If the oceans would–if they could–pour off the edge of the flat Earth, where, then, would they go? Does this mean that whatever keeps the oceans on the surface of the flat Earth only operates in a downward direction on the uppermost surface and is absent on the underneath?
• Why are satellites visible from Earth with a pair of binoculars and even the naked eye?
• How could a flat body maintain an atmosphere?
• Why are other celestial bodies spheres but the Earth is not? How, and why, was the Earth created differently?