To know implies ones perception...client (one who lives under the patronage of another) implies ones consent to the suggestion (list) of another.
If one doesn't see a client enlisting, then one doesn't know if there is a client list.
Just like any narration..."epstein list" implies a fictitious contract between consent and suggestion to distract from perception of reality.
Do you agree with...
Agreeing minds contradict each ones perceiving (knowing) mind.
Do you agree...that the reason
Only if one agrees or disagrees aka chooses a SIDE can there be a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree), which obstructs ones perceiving SIGHT.
we won't see
Because seeing implies each singular ones perception within all perceivable...not a suggested pluralism (we) tempting an aggregation of singulars to consent to what others show their deceived eyes to look/lock at.
Example...watching tell-a-vision isn't seeing.
tucker carlson
A video showing "Tucker Carlson" shows those looking at it a fictitious representation of what ones real sight doesn't see. Branding a video transmission "live" doesn't make it "alive" to ones living sight.
It's this mass ignorance of sight, which willingly permits few to abuse children out of sight. One doesn't need a list of who does what to whom out of ones sight...one needs all perceivable moving through ones perception to enable sight. Others obscure ones sight by suggesting what one wants or not wants to look/lock at; thereby tempting ignorance.
To know implies ones perception...client (one who lives under the patronage of another) implies ones consent to the suggestion (list) of another.
If one doesn't see a client enlisting, then one doesn't know if there is a client list.
Just like any narration..."epstein list" implies a fictitious contract between consent and suggestion to distract from perception of reality.
Agreeing minds contradict each ones perceiving (knowing) mind.
Only if one agrees or disagrees aka chooses a SIDE can there be a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree), which obstructs ones perceiving SIGHT.
Because seeing implies each singular ones perception within all perceivable...not a suggested pluralism (we) tempting an aggregation of singulars to consent to what others show their deceived eyes to look/lock at.
Example...watching tell-a-vision isn't seeing.
A video showing "Tucker Carlson" shows those looking at it a fictitious representation of what ones real sight doesn't see. Branding a video transmission "live" doesn't make it "alive" to ones living sight.
It's this mass ignorance of sight, which willingly permits few to abuse children out of sight. One doesn't need a list of who does what to whom out of ones sight...one needs all perceivable moving through ones perception to enable sight. Others obscure ones sight by suggesting what one wants or not wants to look/lock at; thereby tempting ignorance.
Doesn't the word "client" implies that the person pays for your services.
I'm not sure what you would call someone you blackmailed.