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).