(To certain people: Skip)
Scott Powell <teraten at hotmail.com> wrote:
>Mostly this is for you, Cijadrachon. Note that this newsgroup uses english.
Ach. Das waere mir beinahe entgangen. Intelligenz laesst gruessen.
>Cijadrachon wrote:
>>> >We limit our investigation of the (rat, cat, man) brain to the material
>> >world.
>>>> Would you mind stopping WEing and THEing like some US-Americans do?
>>>> I never met THE rat or THE cat, nor THE man.
>>From Webster's Dictionary:
Check Websters and the entire Westie data about I areas of the brain.
Also try INDIVIDUAL.
>From Webster's Dictionary:
> we, pron. [ME. we; AS. we] the persons speaking or writing: sometimes used by a
>person in referring to several persons including himself, or by a king, author,
>editor, judge, etc. in referring to himself. We is the nominative case form, us
>the objective, our and ours the possessive, and ourselves (or, by a king, etc.,
>ourself) the intensive and reflexive, of the first personal plural pronoun.
> sl. the speaker and the audience, as in 'We must unite.'
> OK, since that one isn't quite so clear, let me hilite on the parts that are
>important:
>used by a person in referring to several persons including himself
>(slang) the speaker and the audience
> The slang version is the important part, however the formal version also
>includes some of it..
Since you like to study so much it seems, go to different peoples and
check how many you meet use we for over 5 billion people and how many
would consider that arrogance as they do not know all the people(s) of
Earth.
Compare the rate of such WEing in the USA to other places.
Within the USA try to find people who are fluent in three languages
and have lived at least half a year in another culture of which they
spoke the language.
Compare how often they use such WEing compared to the rest.
Then think about the result.
> I don't know what is with your Akasha stuff, but I don't think most people
>believe it is a relevant reference .. at least, most people in this newsgroup ..
>if I am wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, could you stop using it as such?
And next you ask me to stop using numbers.
And of course I must not say yoghurt, Kefir, Hertz, bonsai, karate,
chakra, acupuncture and a load of other words, as those were not
properly originating around 14hundredsomething when Anglosaxon and
Norman and some other vocabulary mix stopped being very chaotic and
merged slowly to the language that a bunch of those who went off to
shoot people in America and occupy their territory then used.
You prove to me what is wrong in akasha theories and after that why
the Westie electron theory and some others there are completely
correct, and after that we can discuss if I am going to give some
sense censored branch with not even a few thouands of years of energy
research, though nice detail data, preference over akasha.
If you wish me to drop terms that have been heard about in many lands
and are used by quite a few people Earth, then you do not achieve that
by insisting that I must narrow my language to leave out all terms
that someone WEing for all people(s) Earth does not know, whose
language does not even date back a thousand years and partially
consists of mine.
BTW, since you seem to like dictionaries:
Before you continue to demand that I censor out energy concepts like
akasha in my writings, a term known by quite a number of humans of
Earth into magic energy research, and demand that I reduce my
vocabulary down to the words you know, you could consider to read the
(rather unsatisfying) entry (I found from 1994) in Webster's
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language about
"akasha".
