Fractal aka fract (to fracture) al (all)...only within all can there be more or less of each one. Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Within all of energy...each power implies an energized fractal.
Fractals do not contradict themselves
guywholikesDjito2024 as one singular being using pluralism (fractals; themselves) establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
You contradict reality
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that. It's branding one as "you" which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
But not for long
a) Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
You will lose
You vs me implies a circular conflict...loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear procession.
Nothing is being destroyed by any fractals, you word worshiper.
only within all can there be more or less of each one.
Okay kamala harris.
Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Citation needed.
Within all of energy
Is that grammatically correct?
each power implies an energized fractal.
Is that a real world thing or a part of this made up word game?
establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Nope.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
a) Establishes vs doesn't establish and b) matter vs no matter mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto. There now you killed your worldview.
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that.
Stop using your word games to interpret my comments. You're the only one obsessed with doing word games.
It's branding one as "you"
Oh, then what other word do you propose we use then? If the term "you" is SO BAD, then make a new word.
which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
Ficticious vs real implies conflict. There now you have killed your worldview (again). Stop playing word games, they contradict themselves.
Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
Do you have a dictionary source for that?
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
Thanks for admitting I wasn't wrong.
You vs me implies a circular conflict
No. One line crashing into another. Take two rectangular wood planks and put their smallest, thinnest side together. Do they magically make a circle or are they still linear?
loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear
Of course you'll lose against reality. Reality doesn't play those word games.
Fractal implies destruction of whole aka de (to divide) struct (fractal structure) ion (whole action) as in...cause implies the acting whole; effect implies the fractal structure within. Power implies fractal within energy.
An even simpler example...if one opens a puzzle-box, then the pieces within represent the fractal destruction of the whole picture tempting one play a game of puzzle aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka mosaic law.
Puzzle implies mosaic aka summoning fractals together aka order out of chaos.
word worshiper
Sound implies worth...words tempts ship (instrument) to shipwreck by burdening self, while fighting other vessels. Pirates navigate sound, while shooting words at others ships to sink them.
If words had worth, then one wouldn't have to use words to describe worth to others. It's the consent of others aka their evaluation, which affixes worth aka value to suggested words.
Citation needed
Citate/citare - "to summon"...nature divides each being from one another; few suggest citations to artificially summon many together.
One needs to resist the wanted temptation of togetherness...otherwise one cannot sustain self aka apartheid.
Is that grammatically correct?
Cor (together) + rect/reg (to move in a straight line)...others suggest the word "correct" as grammar aka philology aka magic incantation... https://www.etymonline.com/word/grammar
Why? To distract many together (cor) from being moved in a straight line (rect) apart from one another.
Is that a real...or made up
WAS implies ones response (re) to all (al)...IS can only be made up within all that was.
Nope.
The narrow line of reality continues even if one "nopes" out of it into broader fiction. It's at the end of the line, when life doesn't have enough resistance anymore to venture into the temptation of broader fiction...when the nope (nihilism aka denial) disperses with force.
Establishes vs doesn't establish
Nature already does before an establishment comes into being. From doing towards establishment implies a straight line...not a versus/verto - "to turn" aka circular conflict.
You chose to add nothing to what everything does aka DOES-N'T (does nothing)...it's your choice which upholds the versus conflict.
matter vs no matter
No aka nothing/nihilo implies the denial within matter of the motion moving through matter. Denial implies turning inwards (logic) first before turning outwards (reason) against other matter.
Nature (inception towards death) doesn't turn into being (life)...nature nurtures natives by moving straight through, which life perceives as the inhaled spirit and the exhaled ghost.
to kill your worldview
To kill implies "to deprive of life"...to view/veue aka a visual perception implies "to see". Only withing the process of dying can life see.
Stop using your word games to interpret my comments
a) Nature cannot be stopped by any being within...consenting to one another's stop signs only distracts a temporal being from ongoing nature.
b) My vs yours implies the game of ignoring given choice by taking the chance to hold onto a side.
c) Interpretation implies being moved forwards (pret) internally (inter). Ones perception interprets all perceivable...no matter what another suggests one to do or not do.
Interpretation cannot be stopped...only ignored aka denied.
You're the only one obsessed with doing word games.
Obsession implies compulsion (oppsessive compulsive disorder) aka wanting to hold together...free-will-of-choice simply takes apart what others hold together by belief/faith/creed etc.
Then notice that YOU'RE implies a you vs me + are vs aren't circle of conflict based on the compulsive obsession to hold onto a side.
Now what's the opposite of compulsive? FREE aka free will of choice...
then what other word do you propose we use then?
a) Nature doesn't propose words...sound pro (forwards) poses (position) instrument.
b) Free-will-of-choice doesn't propose alternative words...only describes fundamental sound and how alternation of words within tempts one to ignore that.
c) Sound implies singularity aka oneness of sound moving through each unit of instrument. The word WE implies a suggested pluralism, which tempts singular consent into a plural consensus with others.
Few suggest US (united states) and E PLURIBUS UNUM (out of many, one) to invert singularity (sound) into pluralism (words)...free-will-of-choice simply describes how that works.
d) Free-will-of-choice adapts to everything already available...guywholikesDjtof2024 seeks proposals for anything that isn't already available within everything.
guywholikesDjtof2024 was being tricked to play hide and seek willingly...free-will-of-choice cannot change that; only describe how it works.
If the term "you" is SO BAD
a) If implies then (implication)...bad implies vs good (reason). Circular reason tempts one to ignore linear implication.
b) Notice that term implies "limit"...therefore consenting to a term limits ones free will of choice. This magic is called "terminology" aka tempting one with terms into circular logic aka self confinement.
Fictitious vs real implies conflict
Only while responding (re) to all (al) can one shape fiction. To do that one has to turn (vs) away from all to one another...first inwardly (logic), then outwardly (reason).
The circle within self (logic) represents the fiction one ignores the linear procession of reality for...the circle outside self (reason) represents others setting up a ring for one to fight others within. A kike/kikel - "circle" tempts each gentile to draw a circle within self, which in return permits each jew to draw circles around gentiles from outside.
Do you have a dictionary source for that? (everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that)
a) Nature delineates...few within suggest dictionaries to dictate many.
b) Ask yourself what came first...every (whole) or each (partial)?
Thanks for admitting I wasn't wrong.
Notice that a circle (right vs wrong or was vs wasn't) denies admission. Notice that reason (outwards circle) is shaped by logic (inward circle)...so drawing a circle within self admits self into an outwardly circle against others, hence no outward admission required.
One line crashing into another.
a) If God implies the first line, then what's the second line?
b) Can motion crush into motion or does it require matter within motion to establish a crash?
c) Doesn't change of direction imply motion as the director of any change of matter within?
d) If line implies delineation, then crashing implies a turning against one another within the same line of delineation like ouroboros eating its own tail.
Take two rectangular wood plank
a) Doesn't each wood plank have a different position from one another for oneself to take two together?
b) How does one know that it's two? By taking first one, then another one...
c) Ready for some fraternal hazing? If you get hit by the first one, then will you respond differently to the second one or will it feel the same? If it's different, then why do you use the same label (two) for each different plank?
Do they magically make a circle or are they still linear?
First of all...the planks where artificially shaped out of a natural tree, and it's therefore the life-line of a living tree growing within the process of dying, which implies the source of delineation...not the planks you milled into shape.
Secondly...the circle isn't about the shape of the planks, but originates from your logic putting one natural thing and another natural thing into an artificial "two", which implies you TURNING from natural towards artificial.
Now compare natural delineation with artificial circulation. What has a longer lifeline...the natural tree or the artificial planks milled out of it? The reduction of life is based on the circular conflict within your mind.
you'll lose against reality
RE (to respond) AL (all)...all implies loss; each one within implies responding growth. Loss and growth aren't turning against one another, but imply a delineation within one another.
Reality doesn't play those word games.
Indeed...yet adding "doesn't" to reality implies the use of given choice to take a chance aka gambling aka playing a game. It's the words which betray ones intent.
Fractals do not contradict themselves. They make more of themselves.
You contradict reality. But not for long. You will lose.
Fractal aka fract (to fracture) al (all)...only within all can there be more or less of each one. Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Within all of energy...each power implies an energized fractal.
guywholikesDjito2024 as one singular being using pluralism (fractals; themselves) establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that. It's branding one as "you" which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
a) Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
You vs me implies a circular conflict...loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear procession.
Nothing is being destroyed by any fractals, you word worshiper.
Okay kamala harris.
Citation needed.
Is that grammatically correct?
Is that a real world thing or a part of this made up word game?
Nope.
a) Establishes vs doesn't establish and b) matter vs no matter mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto. There now you killed your worldview.
Stop using your word games to interpret my comments. You're the only one obsessed with doing word games.
Oh, then what other word do you propose we use then? If the term "you" is SO BAD, then make a new word.
Ficticious vs real implies conflict. There now you have killed your worldview (again). Stop playing word games, they contradict themselves.
Do you have a dictionary source for that?
Thanks for admitting I wasn't wrong.
No. One line crashing into another. Take two rectangular wood planks and put their smallest, thinnest side together. Do they magically make a circle or are they still linear?
Of course you'll lose against reality. Reality doesn't play those word games.
Fractal implies destruction of whole aka de (to divide) struct (fractal structure) ion (whole action) as in...cause implies the acting whole; effect implies the fractal structure within. Power implies fractal within energy.
An even simpler example...if one opens a puzzle-box, then the pieces within represent the fractal destruction of the whole picture tempting one play a game of puzzle aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka mosaic law.
Puzzle implies mosaic aka summoning fractals together aka order out of chaos.
Sound implies worth...words tempts ship (instrument) to shipwreck by burdening self, while fighting other vessels. Pirates navigate sound, while shooting words at others ships to sink them.
If words had worth, then one wouldn't have to use words to describe worth to others. It's the consent of others aka their evaluation, which affixes worth aka value to suggested words.
Citate/citare - "to summon"...nature divides each being from one another; few suggest citations to artificially summon many together.
One needs to resist the wanted temptation of togetherness...otherwise one cannot sustain self aka apartheid.
Cor (together) + rect/reg (to move in a straight line)...others suggest the word "correct" as grammar aka philology aka magic incantation... https://www.etymonline.com/word/grammar
Why? To distract many together (cor) from being moved in a straight line (rect) apart from one another.
WAS implies ones response (re) to all (al)...IS can only be made up within all that was.
The narrow line of reality continues even if one "nopes" out of it into broader fiction. It's at the end of the line, when life doesn't have enough resistance anymore to venture into the temptation of broader fiction...when the nope (nihilism aka denial) disperses with force.
Nature already does before an establishment comes into being. From doing towards establishment implies a straight line...not a versus/verto - "to turn" aka circular conflict.
You chose to add nothing to what everything does aka DOES-N'T (does nothing)...it's your choice which upholds the versus conflict.
No aka nothing/nihilo implies the denial within matter of the motion moving through matter. Denial implies turning inwards (logic) first before turning outwards (reason) against other matter.
Nature (inception towards death) doesn't turn into being (life)...nature nurtures natives by moving straight through, which life perceives as the inhaled spirit and the exhaled ghost.
To kill implies "to deprive of life"...to view/veue aka a visual perception implies "to see". Only withing the process of dying can life see.
a) Nature cannot be stopped by any being within...consenting to one another's stop signs only distracts a temporal being from ongoing nature.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Mcfadden-and-whitehead-aint-no-stoppin-us-now-lyrics
b) My vs yours implies the game of ignoring given choice by taking the chance to hold onto a side.
c) Interpretation implies being moved forwards (pret) internally (inter). Ones perception interprets all perceivable...no matter what another suggests one to do or not do.
Interpretation cannot be stopped...only ignored aka denied.
Obsession implies compulsion (oppsessive compulsive disorder) aka wanting to hold together...free-will-of-choice simply takes apart what others hold together by belief/faith/creed etc.
Notice that OCD is described as a circle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
Then notice that YOU'RE implies a you vs me + are vs aren't circle of conflict based on the compulsive obsession to hold onto a side.
Now what's the opposite of compulsive? FREE aka free will of choice...
a) Nature doesn't propose words...sound pro (forwards) poses (position) instrument.
b) Free-will-of-choice doesn't propose alternative words...only describes fundamental sound and how alternation of words within tempts one to ignore that.
c) Sound implies singularity aka oneness of sound moving through each unit of instrument. The word WE implies a suggested pluralism, which tempts singular consent into a plural consensus with others.
Few suggest US (united states) and E PLURIBUS UNUM (out of many, one) to invert singularity (sound) into pluralism (words)...free-will-of-choice simply describes how that works.
d) Free-will-of-choice adapts to everything already available...guywholikesDjtof2024 seeks proposals for anything that isn't already available within everything.
guywholikesDjtof2024 was being tricked to play hide and seek willingly...free-will-of-choice cannot change that; only describe how it works.
a) If implies then (implication)...bad implies vs good (reason). Circular reason tempts one to ignore linear implication.
b) Notice that term implies "limit"...therefore consenting to a term limits ones free will of choice. This magic is called "terminology" aka tempting one with terms into circular logic aka self confinement.
Only while responding (re) to all (al) can one shape fiction. To do that one has to turn (vs) away from all to one another...first inwardly (logic), then outwardly (reason).
The circle within self (logic) represents the fiction one ignores the linear procession of reality for...the circle outside self (reason) represents others setting up a ring for one to fight others within. A kike/kikel - "circle" tempts each gentile to draw a circle within self, which in return permits each jew to draw circles around gentiles from outside.
a) Nature delineates...few within suggest dictionaries to dictate many.
b) Ask yourself what came first...every (whole) or each (partial)?
Notice that a circle (right vs wrong or was vs wasn't) denies admission. Notice that reason (outwards circle) is shaped by logic (inward circle)...so drawing a circle within self admits self into an outwardly circle against others, hence no outward admission required.
a) If God implies the first line, then what's the second line?
b) Can motion crush into motion or does it require matter within motion to establish a crash?
c) Doesn't change of direction imply motion as the director of any change of matter within?
d) If line implies delineation, then crashing implies a turning against one another within the same line of delineation like ouroboros eating its own tail.
a) Doesn't each wood plank have a different position from one another for oneself to take two together?
b) How does one know that it's two? By taking first one, then another one...
c) Ready for some fraternal hazing? If you get hit by the first one, then will you respond differently to the second one or will it feel the same? If it's different, then why do you use the same label (two) for each different plank?
First of all...the planks where artificially shaped out of a natural tree, and it's therefore the life-line of a living tree growing within the process of dying, which implies the source of delineation...not the planks you milled into shape.
Secondly...the circle isn't about the shape of the planks, but originates from your logic putting one natural thing and another natural thing into an artificial "two", which implies you TURNING from natural towards artificial.
Now compare natural delineation with artificial circulation. What has a longer lifeline...the natural tree or the artificial planks milled out of it? The reduction of life is based on the circular conflict within your mind.
RE (to respond) AL (all)...all implies loss; each one within implies responding growth. Loss and growth aren't turning against one another, but imply a delineation within one another.
Indeed...yet adding "doesn't" to reality implies the use of given choice to take a chance aka gambling aka playing a game. It's the words which betray ones intent.