How does one apply "none" aka "no one" to real life?
apply
Applying implies "joining together"...being implies set apart from one another. How could application be real if nature shows the separation of mother and off-spring at birth?
absolute
Absolute implies "free from limitations", yet free will of choice can only work within limitations, hence ones struggle to choose.
etymological games
Etymo (straight) logic (circular thinking) al (all)...it's when one chooses to ignore straight for circular that the game begins.
The conflict between real vs false only exist within a circle...not within the straight line. Why? Because a circle TURNS on itself.
practice
Practical implies matters (perception) of action (perceivable)...matter consenting to the suggestion of other matter implies speculative.
To practice requires one to resist speculation, which only then grows self discernment. Others exploit speculation with mediation (media) and contemplation (entertainment).
How does one apply "none" aka "no one" to real life?
I didn't say anything about "applying none" to real life. What I did say is that your etymology games don't apply to real life.
Applying implies "joining together"
Even if it did, the implication is a non-factor. Thanks for admitting I'm right. Inb4 "Oh, being right implies destruction" or whatever. No it doesn't.
How could application be real if nature shows the separation
Nature shows no such thing. You're being daft.
mother and off spring
Irrelevant. Tangential. "Why is the fountain broken?" "OH LOOK A TWIG FELL AND A SQUIRREL CAUGHT IT" "That's not why the fountain is broken."
Absolute implies "free from limitations"
Only in certain contexts.
yet free will of choice can only work within limitations,
Limitations such as...? I doubt you can name any, since you just spout recited gibberish as if it is factual info.
Etymo (straight) logic (circular thinking) al (all)...it's when one chooses to ignore straight for circular that the game begins.
Thus proving my claim. Who is going to know this? Who actually believes this? What buuldings are going to be constructed by this? NONE.NONE.
The conflict between real vs false only exist within a circle...not within the straight line.
You made that up. That's false.
Why? Because a circle TURNS on itself.
Oh? Is that true or are you hust voniting words for the laughs?
That's false, but if true then that's a good thing. Now turn on yourself.
Practical implies matters (perception) of action (perceivable)...matter consenting to the suggestion of other matter implies speculative.
Try again. And stop confusing matter as in physical matter with matter as in relevancy.
To practice requires one to resist speculation,
What's being speculated about? How competent you are?
b) Joining together put things AT ODDS with one another, while ignoring even.
implication is a non-factor.
a) Everything implies each thing...nothing denies everything and thereby implication (if/then).
b) Notice that factor has ACT (action) in it, which implies reaction in reality. Putting an F before ACT implies fictitious action aka a fiction shaped by reaction within action as distraction for one another.
A suggested fact tempts one to hold onto, thereby contradicting action, which cannot be held onto.
c) The use of "is" implies a circular conflict (is vs isn't), which implication (if/then) doesn't have.
b) Right forwards (inception towards death), which admits being (life)... I AM implies a being taking possession over self while ignoring the righteous process.
being right implies
If right; then being. If being; then within the righteous way.
No it doesn't.
Aka "nothing it does nothing"...that's you being tricked by a theorem of propositional logic called "double negation".
Nature shows no such thing (separation).
a) So there's no difference between a beings perception and what nature offers it? If I fart over here, then can you smell it over there or could there be a natural separation of position among being?
b) If you say "thing", then that implies a separation of each thing from one another within everything.
c) Isn't there a separation between show and audience?
d) Aren't yes and no separated from one another?
e) Such implies "alike" one another...so doesn't one have to be separated from one another to judge such and such likeness of one another?
"mother and off spring"...Irrelevant.
Relevance implies relieve, hence the relief a mother feels after the separation of each off-spring. Nature giving each being free will of choice implies a relief of burden; it's choosing to hold onto which reestablishes burden....branding anything "irrelevant" implies the sharing attempt of a self imposed burden aka a sin-tax (syntax).
tangential
Tangent implies "meeting at a point without intersecting"...being implies life sentence moved towards point of death by separation from one another, which allows intersection aka internal sex. Therefore...to be implies divergence. Few suggest tangent to entangle many together.
Absolute implies "free from limitations"...Only in certain contexts.
a) Only implies one and only...not only and "certain contexts".
b) Certain implies the use of ones free will of choice to ascertain aka to suggest an assurance to one another to tempt consent into a binding contract.
In short...certainty tempts free will of choice into bondage.
c) Context implies "to weave together" aka the aforementioned bondage of free will of choice into a binding contract with one another called "consensus".
d) Free implies from balance....balance implies the action limiting reacting choice. Only within balance can there be choice.
Limitations such as...?
Balance. Choice implies in-between balance. Imbalance implies choice within balance choosing to hold onto one side, which establishes the circular conflict against the other side aka imbalance for choice.
info
Aka suggested information tempting one to ignore perceivable inspiration.
proving my claim
a) Proof/prove is in the pudding/putting...nature puts (inception) and pulls (death) being (life) in (living) and out (dying) of existence.
b) Claiming implies making a demand, which contradicts the given mandate of heaven from genesis (inception towards death) to revelation (life).
Who is going to know this?
Each one who discerns self within knowledge..which cannot be shared without contradicting SELF discernment.
Who actually believes this?
Knowledge moves through one; beliefs tempt one to hold onto. Believing contradicts knowing.
What buildings are going to be constructed by this?
Knowledge doesn't con (together) struct (structure)...it allows ones self dis (to divide) cern (to perceive) ment (mind).
Building implies division, hence the fruit of ones labors aka each off-spring. Few suggest construction by utilizing free-masonry and mosaic law to tempt many into building artificial constructs/creations/fashions/manufactures/compositions/produce/engineering/developments etc. Holding onto a construct implies idolatry...hence constructing the tower of babel until it collapses upon its foundation yet again.
"The conflict between real vs false only exist within a circle...not within the straight line." You made that up. That's false.
a) Free-will-of-choice sets apart what a jew made up, and what gentiles hold together. Why? Because resisting the temptation to hold together what another made up...sustains free will of choice.
b) Versus/verto - "to turn"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/versus Turning implies circular rotation; being (life) implies linear progression (inception towards death).
c) Drawing a circle implies putting the beginning and end of a line together, which inverts nature setting beginning (inception) and end (death) of line apart (life), hence establishing ones life-line.
d) Up and down aren't in a circular conflict against one another, but represent balance (up/down) for ones choice in-between, and only within linear motion can there be balance (momentum) for choice (matter).
"a circle TURNS on itself"...that's false.
How to draw a circle without beginning turning onto end?
stop confusing matter as in physical matter with matter as in relevancy.
a) Only within motion (inception towards death) can there be matter (life)...other suggest the cessation of motion (stop) to tempt one to deny being moved.
b) Only within ALL can there be physic-AL and ment-AL relevancy aka separation from one another, which con (together) fuse (to melt) contradicts.
What's being speculated about?
Being implies special aka specific (partial) within all (whole)...speculation (conjecture of thinking) with one another tempts one to ignore that, which permits each jew to establish "investment of money upon risk for the sake of profit" among speculative gentiles aka investment banking within the vestige of gentile minds.
What's a vestige? A mark, trace, sign aka an idol of speculation.
How competent you are?
Competence tempts one to compete against one another, while ignoring that all (perceivable) is given to each one (perception) for free will of choice.
b) Joining together put things AT ODDS with one another, while
Contradictory. Joining implies union. I'm not obsessed with words yet I know this. Another L for your word games.
ignoring even.
And why is that a bad thing? "Ignoring even" isn't a coherent phrase. Thanks for admitting you don't know how to use english right. Your "mental exercise" has FAILED. So stop it.
b) Notice that factor has ACT (action) in it, which implies reaction in reality. Putting an F before ACT implies fictitious action aka a fiction shaped by reaction within action as distraction for one another.
"F" comes before "ree will of choice", implying absolutely every single thing you do, say, and believe is fictitious.
a) Union implies one (uni) action (ion), which separates into each unit of reaction within. Only reactions set apart from one another can choose to join together.
b) Join/joie - "pleasure; delight; bliss", hence to rejoice - "to own, possess, enjoy the possession of"...joining implies falling for temptation, hence getting owned; getting possessed and repossessed by others.
Prime example for joining...sex (seco; to divide). The more one falls for the temptation of lust when joining together, the more one fucks up the sexual divide producing off-spring aka the fruit of ones labors aka the coming into being of another UNIT.
c) God implies singularity...joining together implies plurality.
d) A jew tempts gentiles together by suggesting united states; united nations; united kingdom; soviet union; european union; university; uniformity; universalism; unicode; unicef; universal serial bus; unisex; universal pictures; universal basic income; unilever etc...joining either destroys each unit of being.
"ignoring even"...And why is that a bad thing?
Because it puts good vs bad against one another aka at odds...
"Ignoring even" isn't a coherent phrase
a) Even implies "level/balance"...being implies choice. Cohere aka com (together) haerere (to adhere, stick) implies ones free will of choice stuck in bondage to another.
b) Phrase/phrasis - "way of speech" implies sound as the way within speech can be articulated. Doing so tempts one to ignore natural (sound) for artificial (speech) aka falling for spell-craft...entrance free-will-of-choice analyzing and disassembling crafted spells.
Another L for your word games.
L implies "loser" aka a game in-between wining vs losing...
how to use english right.
Right implies linear; english implies angular...hence the freemasonic use of square (angular english) and compass (circular logic).
stop it
Each being is on a journey (ones path of life)...few suggest "don't stop believing" to tempt many into stopping non-believers, which mutually destroys each others journey.
...that's what comes before free will of choice. Also...F implies a letter aka one within all letting another shape letters into words to attach meaning.
How does one apply "none" aka "no one" to real life?
Applying implies "joining together"...being implies set apart from one another. How could application be real if nature shows the separation of mother and off-spring at birth?
Absolute implies "free from limitations", yet free will of choice can only work within limitations, hence ones struggle to choose.
Etymo (straight) logic (circular thinking) al (all)...it's when one chooses to ignore straight for circular that the game begins.
The conflict between real vs false only exist within a circle...not within the straight line. Why? Because a circle TURNS on itself.
Practical implies matters (perception) of action (perceivable)...matter consenting to the suggestion of other matter implies speculative.
To practice requires one to resist speculation, which only then grows self discernment. Others exploit speculation with mediation (media) and contemplation (entertainment).
I didn't say anything about "applying none" to real life. What I did say is that your etymology games don't apply to real life.
Even if it did, the implication is a non-factor. Thanks for admitting I'm right. Inb4 "Oh, being right implies destruction" or whatever. No it doesn't.
Nature shows no such thing. You're being daft.
Irrelevant. Tangential. "Why is the fountain broken?" "OH LOOK A TWIG FELL AND A SQUIRREL CAUGHT IT" "That's not why the fountain is broken."
Only in certain contexts.
Limitations such as...? I doubt you can name any, since you just spout recited gibberish as if it is factual info.
Thus proving my claim. Who is going to know this? Who actually believes this? What buuldings are going to be constructed by this? NONE. NONE.
You made that up. That's false.
Oh? Is that true or are you hust voniting words for the laughs?
That's false, but if true then that's a good thing. Now turn on yourself.
Try again. And stop confusing matter as in physical matter with matter as in relevancy.
What's being speculated about? How competent you are?
DIDN'T aka DID NOTHING...once again a fiction applied to real life.
a) https://www.etymonline.com/word/apply
b) Joining together put things AT ODDS with one another, while ignoring even.
a) Everything implies each thing...nothing denies everything and thereby implication (if/then).
b) Notice that factor has ACT (action) in it, which implies reaction in reality. Putting an F before ACT implies fictitious action aka a fiction shaped by reaction within action as distraction for one another.
A suggested fact tempts one to hold onto, thereby contradicting action, which cannot be held onto.
c) The use of "is" implies a circular conflict (is vs isn't), which implication (if/then) doesn't have.
a) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right
b) Right forwards (inception towards death), which admits being (life)... I AM implies a being taking possession over self while ignoring the righteous process.
If right; then being. If being; then within the righteous way.
Aka "nothing it does nothing"...that's you being tricked by a theorem of propositional logic called "double negation".
a) So there's no difference between a beings perception and what nature offers it? If I fart over here, then can you smell it over there or could there be a natural separation of position among being?
b) If you say "thing", then that implies a separation of each thing from one another within everything.
c) Isn't there a separation between show and audience?
d) Aren't yes and no separated from one another?
e) Such implies "alike" one another...so doesn't one have to be separated from one another to judge such and such likeness of one another?
Relevance implies relieve, hence the relief a mother feels after the separation of each off-spring. Nature giving each being free will of choice implies a relief of burden; it's choosing to hold onto which reestablishes burden....branding anything "irrelevant" implies the sharing attempt of a self imposed burden aka a sin-tax (syntax).
Tangent implies "meeting at a point without intersecting"...being implies life sentence moved towards point of death by separation from one another, which allows intersection aka internal sex. Therefore...to be implies divergence. Few suggest tangent to entangle many together.
a) Only implies one and only...not only and "certain contexts".
b) Certain implies the use of ones free will of choice to ascertain aka to suggest an assurance to one another to tempt consent into a binding contract.
In short...certainty tempts free will of choice into bondage.
c) Context implies "to weave together" aka the aforementioned bondage of free will of choice into a binding contract with one another called "consensus".
d) Free implies from balance....balance implies the action limiting reacting choice. Only within balance can there be choice.
Balance. Choice implies in-between balance. Imbalance implies choice within balance choosing to hold onto one side, which establishes the circular conflict against the other side aka imbalance for choice.
Aka suggested information tempting one to ignore perceivable inspiration.
a) Proof/prove is in the pudding/putting...nature puts (inception) and pulls (death) being (life) in (living) and out (dying) of existence.
Prove aka pro-bhwo implies "forwarded being"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/prove
b) Claiming implies making a demand, which contradicts the given mandate of heaven from genesis (inception towards death) to revelation (life).
Each one who discerns self within knowledge..which cannot be shared without contradicting SELF discernment.
Knowledge moves through one; beliefs tempt one to hold onto. Believing contradicts knowing.
Knowledge doesn't con (together) struct (structure)...it allows ones self dis (to divide) cern (to perceive) ment (mind).
Building implies division, hence the fruit of ones labors aka each off-spring. Few suggest construction by utilizing free-masonry and mosaic law to tempt many into building artificial constructs/creations/fashions/manufactures/compositions/produce/engineering/developments etc. Holding onto a construct implies idolatry...hence constructing the tower of babel until it collapses upon its foundation yet again.
a) Free-will-of-choice sets apart what a jew made up, and what gentiles hold together. Why? Because resisting the temptation to hold together what another made up...sustains free will of choice.
b) Versus/verto - "to turn"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/versus Turning implies circular rotation; being (life) implies linear progression (inception towards death).
c) Drawing a circle implies putting the beginning and end of a line together, which inverts nature setting beginning (inception) and end (death) of line apart (life), hence establishing ones life-line.
d) Up and down aren't in a circular conflict against one another, but represent balance (up/down) for ones choice in-between, and only within linear motion can there be balance (momentum) for choice (matter).
How to draw a circle without beginning turning onto end?
a) Only within motion (inception towards death) can there be matter (life)...other suggest the cessation of motion (stop) to tempt one to deny being moved.
b) Only within ALL can there be physic-AL and ment-AL relevancy aka separation from one another, which con (together) fuse (to melt) contradicts.
Being implies special aka specific (partial) within all (whole)...speculation (conjecture of thinking) with one another tempts one to ignore that, which permits each jew to establish "investment of money upon risk for the sake of profit" among speculative gentiles aka investment banking within the vestige of gentile minds.
What's a vestige? A mark, trace, sign aka an idol of speculation.
Competence tempts one to compete against one another, while ignoring that all (perceivable) is given to each one (perception) for free will of choice.
Your etymology games are DEFINITELY a FICTION applied to real life.
https://AnswersinGenesis.org
Contradictory. Joining implies union. I'm not obsessed with words yet I know this. Another L for your word games.
And why is that a bad thing? "Ignoring even" isn't a coherent phrase. Thanks for admitting you don't know how to use english right. Your "mental exercise" has FAILED. So stop it.
"F" comes before "ree will of choice", implying absolutely every single thing you do, say, and believe is fictitious.
a) Union implies one (uni) action (ion), which separates into each unit of reaction within. Only reactions set apart from one another can choose to join together.
b) Join/joie - "pleasure; delight; bliss", hence to rejoice - "to own, possess, enjoy the possession of"...joining implies falling for temptation, hence getting owned; getting possessed and repossessed by others.
Prime example for joining...sex (seco; to divide). The more one falls for the temptation of lust when joining together, the more one fucks up the sexual divide producing off-spring aka the fruit of ones labors aka the coming into being of another UNIT.
c) God implies singularity...joining together implies plurality.
d) A jew tempts gentiles together by suggesting united states; united nations; united kingdom; soviet union; european union; university; uniformity; universalism; unicode; unicef; universal serial bus; unisex; universal pictures; universal basic income; unilever etc...joining either destroys each unit of being.
Because it puts good vs bad against one another aka at odds...
a) Even implies "level/balance"...being implies choice. Cohere aka com (together) haerere (to adhere, stick) implies ones free will of choice stuck in bondage to another.
b) Phrase/phrasis - "way of speech" implies sound as the way within speech can be articulated. Doing so tempts one to ignore natural (sound) for artificial (speech) aka falling for spell-craft...entrance free-will-of-choice analyzing and disassembling crafted spells.
L implies "loser" aka a game in-between wining vs losing...
Right implies linear; english implies angular...hence the freemasonic use of square (angular english) and compass (circular logic).
Each being is on a journey (ones path of life)...few suggest "don't stop believing" to tempt many into stopping non-believers, which mutually destroys each others journey.
https://genius.com/Journey-dont-stop-believin-lyrics
...that's what comes before free will of choice. Also...F implies a letter aka one within all letting another shape letters into words to attach meaning.
...