First, I am not complaining. second, all your interactions were digressions. I am not mad at you, I am inviting you to something different. If you want to start a topic, I can try to contribute to it too.
Post by Admiral XYZ™
They were not digressions. They were establishing assumptions and frameworks that would allow us to speak to the same content, rather than talking past one another.
You cannot dive directly into questions without setting up boundaries and common terminology.
Have you read Republic? It's a good book that showcases this style of dialogue, Socrates.
What the chain says
- Block
- 961 273
- Time
- 2026-08-07T15:55:07Z
- Signer
- 1PqgufE2YSYkUfx8cWQEbFExZMpNmnCTad
- App
- twetch
- Type
- reply
- Content type
- text/markdown
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1PqgufE2YSYkUfx8cWQEbFExZMpNmnCTad UnverifiedReplies (15)
If you want to establish assumptions, you must clearly state your intention, and do it in a way that stays on topic. One must not unlink from the main subject.
We are making some progress now.
here are the "main subject" interactions so far
you continue to ask a question I have already answered - twice now
not sure where to go from here if you do not do something with the answer you have been given
You've had 1 meaningful interaction where you were straight and honest, the first. Then you got lost when, after my second manifestation, the "first or second thoughts" that occurred to you could not raise any authentic substance, and you manifested shallowly. You know that, now, can we correct the course?
You will tend to say 'no' based on similar impulses, but my intention is good.
You continue to ignore my first interaction, which you acknowledge was "straight and honest".
Disagree with the rest of your points, but if you're so worried about "correcting course", you ought to reply to the "straight and honest" interaction in kind.
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.