Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[fagin]

You and yours?

Nothing then?

 

[abaddon]

Non-Violence is very well defined here. You can take it in concept sense not in entity sense. However, I go further to it, as I indicated previously:

Can you explain why it is that your magic spell checker suddenly learned how to spell "violence" correctly?

 

[Mojo]

Can you explain why it is that your magic spell checker suddenly learned how to spell "violence" correctly?

Kumar has actually claimed that his spellchecker can't spell:

I think, spelling corrector is doing that, Making my correct spelling wrong.

 

[Kumar]

Can you explain why it is that your magic spell checker suddenly learned how to spell "violence" correctly?

Because, you only pointed it, Therefore. I learned not spell checker.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar has actually claimed that his spellchecker can't spell:

Btw, Whether spelling was really wrong?

 

[Kumar]

Nothing then?

God?

Many time I look when sand separate from clay, how its property change? Does it show some resemblance?

 

[Mojo]

Btw, Whether spelling was really wrong?

Yes, it was really wrong.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, it was really wrong.

Actually, I tried it again just now but it is giving right spelling. That time also I used spell checker but how it had given wrong spelling, I do not understand. Also there are no other similar words in spell checker. Probably, I checked but spell checker not worked. In our pronunciation it come somewhat "Voilence"

 

[Peregrinus]

Kumar,

By "too," fagin was avoiding the tediousness of copy-paste, quote, etc. from your numerous posts to imply that "that, too, in addition to everything else you've posted here, is bollocks."

 

[Peregrinus]

Actually, I tried it again just now but it is giving right spelling. That time also I used spell checker but how it had given wrong spelling, I do not understand. Also there are no other similar words in spell checker. Probably, I checked but spell checker not worked. In our pronunciation it come somewhat "Voilence"

Spell checkers consult known lists of commonly used words; they do not pronounce anything. Your particular accent has no influence on your spell checker. Regional pronunciations have no influence on spell checkers.

 

[fagin]

God?

Many time I look when sand separate from clay, how its property change? Does it show some resemblance?

There is no god(s).

Er whut? Resemblance to what?

The properties don't change. Clay is made of different minerals to sand.

 

[abaddon]

Because, you only pointed it, Therefore. I learned not spell checker.

Baloney. There is no way your spell checker consistently borked "voilence", "scractiy" and many others over and over again despite the countless corrections posted in your threads.

 

[abaddon]

Btw, Whether spelling was really wrong?

Yup, your spelling is really wrong, and your grammar, and your syntax.

But you already know this. On this site, you have been intentionally doing it for 15 or so years. On other sites likewise.

It cannot be but an intentional behaviour. The remaining question is why do you do it?

 

[Pooneil]

But I read in actual sense, since perceived, that it can be. Without it, it may be difficult for it to sustain.

You use the word "it" four times in this quote. As best I can tell the word refers to for different objects. As written, any meaning taken from these sentences is by gueswork. Please clarify.

 

[Kumar]

Yup, your spelling is really wrong, and your grammar, and your syntax.

But you already know this. On this site, you have been intentionally doing it for 15 or so years. On other sites likewise.

It cannot be but an intentional behaviour. The remaining question is why do you do it?

It is nothing but your false speculation. Forget.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Baloney. There is no way your spell checker consistently borked "voilence"

I think that's the Irish pronunciation

 

[abaddon]

I think that's the Irish pronunciation

LOL

 

[abaddon]

It is nothing but your false speculation. Forget.

NO. I will not forget. You will not brush this under the carpet. It is not "false speculation", it is right here on this very site in black and white.

Please explain.

 

[bruto]

I would not make excuses for most of Kumar's eccentric use of words and casual disregard for grammar, but must note that some letter combinations are also rather easy to mistype, among them the "i" and "o" of violence. There are a few quickly typed double vowels and diphthongs that are easily reversed. Those of us who have some modicum of respect for our readers (for example, I, a fast typist, just had to correct "repsect"), take the tiny bit of extra time needed to check our work. But of course I am not the king of the world and the grand poobah of spiritual truth, for whom, it seems, the importance of the message trumps the need to make it intelligible to the great unwashed.

I suspect, though I have not bothered to investigate it deeply, that those of us who learned to touch type quickly, as I did, on typebar typewriters, might habitually mistype certain sequences, owing to a deeply entrenched habit of compensating for the odd timing of the letters, such that I now often get certain combinations wrong which I never did back when using a real typewriter.

That is, of course, a poor excuse for bad manners, and I try not to need it.

 

[JayUtah]

Above can depend on if we can be able to claim that humans can also do something independent of nature.

No. You're arbitrarily drawing a division between nature and humankind. This fallacy has been your problem from the start.[

Animals living in nature, nursing, protecting,loving their children and companions suggest nature is many sided.

Your model of nature comes right out of a Disney film. The real world is not cartoon animals.

Religions can derive any part of nature and introduce directly or indirectly, will be called natural. We should look nature from MPOVs not just one POV.

The facts disagree with your point of view. Your point of view is therefore wrong.

We need to better understand it...

No, a "better" understanding will not suddenly make the facts change to agree with your comically childlike view of the world.