lukecash12 wrote:I wasn't aware that a simple discussion concerning a scientific theory would instigate "word salad".
In a simple discussion no, but when you insist upon over-intellectualizing even the simplest of conversations (a hallmark of autism, but completely unnecessary in reality) then it makes you come across as a douche-bag (jury's still out on this one). I'm quite certain you've heard this feedback throughout your life, but you never know when it might finally stick and you give yourself the permission to tone it down a bit. Especially since you don't use many of the words correctly or in the proper context.
If it renders to you any measure of clarity, you would benefit from knowing that any and every idiosyncracy I use is used not so much for it's contextual, intoned, or group relative implication; It is used to render a specific image (in and of itself), and to lend itself to the cumulative case you normally read like any other paragraph.
This convention of finding a specific word and giving your reader/listener a distinct value, and better yet one to be balanced by sequential nuance, is lost on me. You see, given my passionate study of etymology, and familiarity with so many groups and social conventions, it is impossible for me to instinctively benefit from education and select such a specific sequence in order to affect the audience, such that their reception of it would be limited to the large (but markedly fewer) strains of thought mutually accepted; I have a dune sea full of sand grains to sift through, so to speak. These words that have the potential for exquisitely specific values, are stripped of everything but mixed historical sentiment and their most basic or clinical image. Here's to hoping people don't develop a language like Galach in the near future
Using the standard that my paragraphs don't represent a sequential thought pattern, but that they represent organisms or fully arranged caricatures, it should be demonstrable that I intoned hardly a significant emotion so far here. People are up in arms about the trained appraisals and mind games I enjoy, nothing more. Were they familiar enough with my topical method of communcation, they would easily internalize each paragraph as one or a few mutual and principle expressions. Those who have participated in formal debate with me have more often than not thoroughly enjoyed it, once they were familiar enough with my character and methodology to understand that I mean offence only when it is markedly explicit, and that they could take me seriously as an academic.
If any of you would like to test my guarantee, that a normal intellectual can find great pleasure and candor in a formal debate with me, then name the subject and I will organize a numbered and premise built argument in a timely manner. Considering that some of you have taken interest in my choice to be a pastor, or that you may still be keen on the Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam (as well as their relevance to biblical "history"), we can start a thread and work in that direction.
The sentence below this is false.
The sentence above this is true.