Yes, agreed.
Maybe it's this thing (below):
1 Like
This human of mine also had parents who fought - very painful for it as a child, so it's all so familiar.
What else to do but laugh.
1 Like
It does seem so, but there are exceptions. Whitney Webb's work is a good example.
Yes, annoyed. Also, defensive and argumentative to defend their position / opinions. The better a person is at soothing someone's ego, the more popular and liked they usually are.
You'd be surprised what a lady can comprehend 
then dish-out with her own sword. Woman do it differently than most men; more cunningly, behind -the-scenes, very often. Male-bodied beings can be fooled by the female-bodied ones. TWHOFTF warns about it. When a male is angry, it is known; but "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". Ouch!
Was B1 "offering a bunch of flowers"? How kind of her to do so, or was that your own interpretation? No pressure, or putting on the spot, but perhaps B1 will elaborate further if she chooses to.
yes, here, btw
The First Principle of God's
Government - Theocracy:-
But disliking to who/what? To some people's egos/"selves" or the Being? And which, specifically of the communication?
Intellect
the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters.
I would say it's more than a little handy. Definitely survival. Especially when it's hooked up to the mastercomputer and memory-bank:
TWH 3:34 The Holy-Spirit, or g(o)od voice, is planted inside the human animal-body, with, and connected to the soul. It is the soul’s telepathic connection with God. To try to simplify things, for you to be able to understand more easily; if you can think, for a moment, of God, as being like a mastercomputer and memory-bank (fountain of knowledge); with the Holy-Spirit, as the soul’s connection and personal computer terminal, linked to the master one; by which, each soul is told and taught
privately, individually and personally, what is good and what is evil, by the Lord; then you will have a better understanding of how things work.
3:35 You can request and receive information from God, by learning to use your telepathic connection (the Holy-Spirit - 1st. John 2:27). “Seek and you will find”, but ONLY if you seek with ALL your heart (Jeremiah 29:13), and in child-like humility.
3:36 Unfortunately, all you ever do is to ask Him to give you this, or that, or to do this, or that, for you. You NEVER ask Him what YOU can do for Him, do you? Isn’t that very selfish, and onesided?
3:37 The other voice, that everyone has in their head, and knows perfectly well is evil, is obviously the Devil’s voice.
Is this an apt comparison, or a straw man argument?
If I read through this discussion and the original thread I, for one, cannot compare it to shadow boxing, fencing with flimsy swords and then someone (me, I'm assuming) confronting with a sword?
So what came first? The sword fighting, flower offering (Was Aristeas a flower offering? I asked for clarification why it was posted but never got it) or the other unpleasantness that we've witnessed? Why have you turned the timeline upside down, please?
Is it something you recommend, various "flower offerings" out of context in various threads?
The Way home or face The Fire has some wonderful paragraphs about ladies 
Not quite sure what you mean with that sentence, in relation to this conversation.
How about instead giving as much as you can? No need to take. Father will provide what you need.
Indeed.
Are we talking about the same sword, please? Well, you started with equating a sharp intellect with a sharp sword, so I believe, no, not quite.
I believe there is one that you should always keep handy, and readily available, like OB1 did in the bar. It is not only necessary, it is VITAL.
The "Light-sabre" symbolises a combination of the Guiding-Light ("I am the Guiding-Light of the world" - John 8 v 12), and the Two-edged Sword of TRUTH (Ephesians 6 v 17; Hebrews 4 v 12; Revelation 1 v 16 & 19 v 15) [like "Excalibre" - the Sword of Power] which guides people with "blind-faith" and cuts through the lies; deceit and evil of this evil empire (Earth) and protects you from evil attack, both mental and physical, like a suit of armour (Ephesians 6 v 10-19). "He who draws Excalibre (the TRUTH ) from this 'Stone' (Christ - Genesis 49 v 24; Daniel 2 v 34; 1 Peter 2 v 4-9) shall be king" (Revelation 1 v 6) - FREE (John 8 v 32, 36; 1 Corinthians 7 v 22).
The "remote" ball that shoots out red "fiery darts" to attack him from all angles, symbolises the way that Satan will attack you from every possible angle if you do good in the world (Ephesians 6 v 16) and that, using the "Force" and the "Light-sabre", you can always defend yourself (Ephesians 6 v 10-19). Satan will always attack anyone who does good in the world because by doing good you have become a threat to him. He will attack you from every possible angle; from within telepathically, with fear and your imagination running riot; and from without by sending people to get in your way to try to stop you. Source
Can one not assume that if someone posts on a discussion forum that discussion is desired? Do we have rules for how "serious" ones type of communication can be here?
Who is bored?
A myriad?
myriad
a countless or extremely great number of people or things.
And how is that relevant, please? I don't think we can start doing expressive dance and harmonica playing here (perhaps over video conferencing)
It might be a good idea to further reflect what this means and specifically what is the function of the sentence "These are just thoughts"
Sweet.
Understood.
Yes.
Yes I know
The Book of Aristeas is also beautiful - in the midst of some dry logic - like flowers are beautiful.
1 Like
I mistakenly wrote "lady" in the beginning of that sentence. A lady would never act that way.
2 Likes
Thank-you Cybe, although I said I was shadow boxing and you've come with a swinging sword. That seems unbalaned to me.
The post even physically looks like it's been finely sliced to shreads, and its heart has been ripped out. You're no fun man.
Tooo much analysis!! Good in the right place, but not my little creation please. (Actually we're free to do as we please [except break The Law of course], but just so that you know my thinking.)
No, I don't think so.
Hence the suggestion to maybe ask permission to engage.
But greetings to you anyway.
Ph.
Dear all,
Our Master's words are my command, so I am reluctant to take up your time again. There are also far too many really important things going on in the world and compared to that my message is not important. So please only read this when your time allows and if you feel a response is absolutely necessary, please remember that we can do this in a private conversation so as not to bother the whole forum.
I left the debate, in which I unintentionally played a central role, on 17 June, after having been in private conversation with my discussion partner until shortly before a new reply appeared. So there was obviously a conscious distinction between what was to be clarified directly and what was to keep the debate going in the public forum.
I realised that I was losing my peace of mind and also that some things I should have taken care of had been left undone.
(As a side note, I find it worth considering that there seem to be only two ways to end these kinds of debates. Either by escalation, using increasingly aggressive words, or by retreating into silence).
What was it all about?
The debate has been sparked by someone picking out a single adjective from a sentence I used to introduce the Tuckman clock. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it clear that the adjective "normal" used in the sense of a commonly occurring phenomenon should not be seen in isolation from the context. Unfortunately, I was also unable to bring peace by using the adjective "explainable" as a substitute for "normal". Unfortunately, pointing out that there are many other alternative formulations did not help either. Unfortunately, no other reader intervened to point out that this sentence was not at all relevant to the content of my contribution. And unfortunately, in the end, the actual thread topic of male-female communication seemed to be of so little interest that nobody wanted to prevent it from turning into a specialised linguistic debate.
The whole debate has been inexorably pushed in the direction of whether I think "explainable" is a synonym for "normal". But this is a misrepresentation of my position in a way that distorts understanding so that it can be attacked. The entire debate that has ensued is based on a logical fallacy in the form of a classic straw man, which is followed by other fallacies down the line.
Good old Mrs Robertson
Back in the days in advertising, we had some brands that were international in scope. Campaigns for these companies had to work in all sorts of languages. Surprising things happened again and again, for example when a printing company abroad didn't want to print a car advert because it would be pure pornography in the local language.
But we had Mrs Robertson. Mrs Robertson was a funny and warm Englishwoman who ran a translation agency and we could call her day and night and she could always help. Unfortunately, Mrs Robertson is no longer around and I can no longer ask her if I really wrote such nonsense, but I still remember what she once said to me about her fellow countrymen: "If you want to be understood, just make mistakes. That will force these arrogant "natives" to think about what you're trying to say. Otherwise they'll talk you mercilessly down." I apologise for digressing.
Is modern AI perhaps just as clever as good old Mrs Robertson? I tried Bing's Copilot:
You
I have two English sentence suggestions here, which should serve as a transition to introduce a theoretical model. Variant 1: You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite "normal". Variant 2: You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite "explainable". What is the difference between the two sentences?
Copilot
The two English sentences differ in the use of the adjective that describes the situation. In variant 1, the word "normal" is used, while in variant 2 the word "explainable" is used. Here is the meaning of each sentence:
Variant 1:
"You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'normal'."
In this sentence, the situation is described as "normal", which indicates that such unpleasant things are common and not unusual.
Variant 2:
"You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'explainable'."
In this sentence, the situation is described as "explainable", which indicates that there are reasons or explanations for these unpleasant things.
Depending on the context and the desired emphasis, one of the two variants can be used. Both sentences are correct, but they convey different nuances.
You
Could you give another example?
Copilot
Of course you could! Here are two examples that illustrate the differences between the two sentences:
Variant 1 ("normal"):
Imagine you work in an office where there are often unfriendly colleagues. Someone says to you: "You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'normal'." This means that such behaviour is common in everyday office life and is not surprising.
Variant 2 ("explainable"):
Suppose you are active in an online community where there are a lot of negative comments. Someone says to you: "You're right, unkind things have been and continue to be seen here, but firstly you could just consistently ignore them and secondly it's unfortunately quite 'explainable'." This emphasises that there are reasons or explanations for these negative comments, even if they are regrettable.
The choice between the two variants depends on the context. Sometimes something is "normal" because it is commonplace, while in other situations it is "explainable" because there are reasons for it.
You
Are there any similar adjectives I could use?
Copilot
Of course there are! Here are some similar adjectives you could use to describe a situation:
Common: If something is common and not unusual, you could use "common". For example: "It's unfortunately quite common to encounter traffic jams during rush hour."
Typical: If something meets expectations and is characteristic of a certain situation, you can use "typical". For example: "His behaviour is unfortunately quite typical of someone who is under a lot of stress."
Everyday: If something is routine and occurs frequently in everyday life, you can use "everyday". For example: "Dealing with minor setbacks is unfortunately an everyday occurrence."
Ordinary: If something is not out of the ordinary and is part of the norm, you can use "ordinary". For example: "Her reaction to criticism is unfortunately quite ordinary."
Remember that the choice of adjective depends on the context. Each of these words has a slightly different meaning and nuance.
Ask them
In my search for an unvarnished answer to my question about what I did wrong, I'm not getting anywhere. The people I can ask can't help me either, because it's the general norm in my culture that you can't discuss words out of context. You can sing a song together, but you can't formulate a sentence together. If you are not asked for help, you cannot implicitly assume that a speaker is too stupid to express what they want to say.
Who always helps is The Father. So I asked The Most High to search my heart and tell me why I, who am not prone to chattiness, have gotten myself into such trouble, despite the kindest and most peaceful intentions, and why no one has come to my aid to smooth the waters.
The answer I get is, ask them.
Since the posts in this forum are supposed to be directly or indirectly related to Gibraltar, I would like to be understood as taking my somewhat strange case as an opportunity to reflect on how things will be when we, as people from all over the world with different levels of English, (hopefully) meet in Gibraltar one day. Do we want to dismiss everyone who can't express themselves perfectly?
I thank the Holy Father for the training and you for your attention.
Cybe is ok with everyone and he can forgive anyone.
Someone said he is like Mr Spock.
Everyone should watch the Star Trek episode called The Enemy Within referenced in TWHOFTF.