you're arguing

The circular mind (agree vs disagree) argues...the linear mind (if > then) doesn't have a side to hold onto and argue from.

about "almost"

Few (jew) tempting most (gentile) together to distract from all...that's what "almost" implies. It's abrahamism aka abh (father) raham (multitude) which represents the conspiracy by few against many.

How does it benefit free will of choice to ignore the implication of "almost"? Or to bring it back to the topic....MOST represents a surrogate (substitute) of ALL if one consents to it.

The problem is that you're too retarded to understand that you're retarded.

a) Solution (inception towards death) > problem (life)...retardation implies problem ignoring solution.

b) Understanding implies ones choice to "stand-under" the suggestion of another. Knowledge implies ones choice balancing on the edge of all known...not under or over one another, but in-between.

c) What if I'm fully aware of what I'm doing and how "most" react to it?

you're arguing

The circular mind (agree vs disagree) argues...the linear mind (if > then) doesn't have a side to hold onto and argue from.

about "almost"

Few (jew) tempting most (gentile) together to distract from all...that's what "almost" implies. It's abrahamism aka abh (father) raham (multitude) which represents the conspiracy by few against many.

How does it benefit free will of choice to ignore the implication of "almost"? Or to bring it back to the topic....MOST represents a surrogate (substitute) of ALL if one consents to it.

The problem is that you're too retarded to understand that you're retarded.

a) Solution (inception towards death) > problem (life)...retardation implies problem ignoring solution.

b) Understanding implies ones choice to "stand-under" the suggestion of another. Knowledge implies ones choice balancing on the edge of all known...not under or over one another.

c) What if I'm fully aware of what I'm doing and how "most" react to it?