Like, any other communication style you prefer you would use in the next periods of times for those potential contracts for understanding or anything?
I mean, contracts should be understood to be valid and not voided from lack of understanding sought to be generated around those contracts even if directly indirect to them, in diversionary attempts.
Okay.
The section I put in parenthesis appears to be an ‘aside’ - that is, additional descriptive text that references the underlying sentence but is not actually part of it. Grammar conventions would separate this with commas or parenthesis.
The section I put in question marks I cannot parse at all - I have no idea how it is relevant to the sentence.
Taking out all the bolded content, you end up with this sentence, which is closer to the ‘plain English’ style:
Just to claim some lack of understanding is hardly cooperating at all with the fact it is not secret nor intended to be in this case.
Thus, the basic statement you are making appears to be what I wrote before:
Did you intend something else by that statement?
Says you.
I don’t think it would be beneficial for me to read this since it may not serve any purpose.
Make up your mind, please. Contradicting yourself is highly confusing when someone is trying to understand the basis for your argument. Because you are not managing to state a consistent premise for your argument, nobody can translate your evidence or solutions, as without a valid premise you can make no argument.
1 Like
Hmm
Lets test this
- apple
B) Orange
III) ?
2 Likes
四) Profit
2 Likes
Yeah, but, you’re also contradicting me, and worse too.
I mean, I don’t think you want me to go over what you wrote me about your English standards really…
I can give you the rules for the language related, but it’s not going to change anything.
That is in fact , trivial, and frivolous.
When someone attacks others with communication barriers sought to be erected with communication gap, and seek psychological support to do so, it is the exact same attack force and type for the same intent.
Not all fighting in war happens all the time.
Sometimes it is only 0.000,001 seconds, other times, it’s 99 years silent.
appears to be literally means ‘can be interpreted this way’. If that was not your intent, I have invited you to clarify so that I can actually understand you. I have already put the onus on me to understand your communication in general, I am simply asking if I parsed it correctly and provided the conventions I follow to explain where my possible errors in understanding occurred.
If you are not willing to make an effort to be understood, I’ll just block you and not worry about whatever you write going forward. If you are willing to make the attempt when someone asks for clarification, then I’m happy to try and learn the nuances of your speech so I can readily read what you have to say.
Just because you have an interpretation or a judge has an interpretation doesn’t mean that it does justice to the fact.
Just because you have an interpretation or a judge has an interpretation doesn’t mean that it does justice to the fact.
Then please provide clarifying statements. I explained how I interpreted what I read. You have not explained how you intended what you wrote.
That is my clarification.
That is not a clarification, it is a cop out.
And I’m blocking you now for being a troll.
You’re the one creating this.
Yeah me too. I don’t need you.
You just keep wasting my time with misinterpretation about how you can misinterpret me and ask me to explain how you do so, because you try to attack my with your misunderstanding you try to attack me with.
What kind of a stupid idiocy is that?
Even if I worked on it for 25 years or 35 years I would still gain nothing from it because that is exactly what you try to do,
make me seem like if I was not relevant and omit the waste of time you try to attack me with I already have to report to Special Operations due to the amount of psychological support you sought to put against me on it.
You think I would work 35 years and interpret my work as irrelevant and not relevant and try to twist my work in being vain and be a troll by associating with you?
You know what you can do with those educational support of yours.
I have to make sure my son gets a good education , not let him be mislead in vice so he can’t grow in virtue, contrary to your suggestions about virtue and what virtue is.
By taking things out of context and try to stress factors not related to the diversion intended and sought to be used to control the damage caused, I would be a part of the damage caused to me and I would omit the intended and sought damages caused to me that others seek to credit themselves for trying to be doing to my work, while trying to be obligating me to omit it, so that they can credit themselves for doing.
That is the definition of insanity,
and also more insane than the definition only,
because it also intends to attack integrity and moral rights, and moral reason, and moral relation for marriage, including legitimate child.