ecco
Veteran Member
cladking to Dan From Smithville:
You're taking this too literally.
cladking to ecco:
You are taking no heed of the literal meaning of what I say.
ecco said:
Maybe the problem lies in your writing.
Are you also aware that it comes across as you just trying to be deceitful?
You say one thing to someone and another thing to someone else. If that's the way the Ancients thought and talked, that doesn't make them seem intelligent, it makes them seem ridiculous.
One way around it is to be truthful and consistent and not make excuses.
It seems that you leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that don't really exist.
You're taking this too literally.
cladking to ecco:
You are taking no heed of the literal meaning of what I say.
ecco said:
Maybe the problem lies in your writing.
I'm quite aware this is part of the problem. I think a lot like ancient people so I talk a little like them.
I'm well aware it's often ineffective and some individuals will be completely lost but it's the only way I think and the only way I know how to (try to) communicate.
Are you also aware that it comes across as you just trying to be deceitful?
You say one thing to someone and another thing to someone else. If that's the way the Ancients thought and talked, that doesn't make them seem intelligent, it makes them seem ridiculous.
Unlike most people I know that communication typically breaks down anyway and with the unusual things I'm saying it's even more likely to fail. We each deconstruct everything differently. There is no way around this.
One way around it is to be truthful and consistent and not make excuses.
Another problem is I see reality not from a religious or scientific perspective but from a metaphysical one. I am a nexialist but rarely explain my deductions. I leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that aren't always apparent.
But I'm always willing to explain, elaborate, or rephrase something.
It seems that you leap to intuitive conclusions using facts and logic that don't really exist.