Why Innuendoes? v.06 - the arrogance

People are so much allergic to contentions, with that corrections, they would use innuendoes.

The first thing that set apart one thing and another is their contexts, if you use the wrong context in order to convey the message, it's as if the reality is not that sophisticated that there's such thing as such that requires not the proper context. 

There's something special about every single thing, and to use innuendoes to negotiate is as if you don't acknowledge that and then would proceed with your next decision (often times on other people). 

It's just pure display of political power, and even it contains the audacity that you don't have to worry about the proper context or that you know that it's definitely not accurate and still you'd proceed with your desire. 

----------------

Blatant spoken word, pen on paperness, is not a guarantee that the decisions would be right, but to me at least what needs to be considered were considered, the issue were put on the proper context to be assessed accessibly by the relevant parties, by the relevant concerns easily, as hard as it's supposed to (usually).

At least it's not making it more inaccessible by the other party like innuendoes would. 

Again people need to separate idioms, jokes, illustrations from innuendoes. Because the later is all about not being responsible for the things conveyed, not giving the attribution to yourself things that you conveyed and not letting yourself be reviewed as result of your conveying of the meaning. On top of that because the context is different, there would be more or less extra procedures to put the issues at their proper contexts which were different, therefore you've just incurred costs of conversions for the whole audience of your innuendoes. 

I'm not being autistic or whatever it is like that, this is normal, innuendoes are guaranteed innaccuracy. If it's not then it's not what I'm talking about.

ON TOP OF THAT, when you put things in their proper contexts it would be revealed the nuances that would make everything meaningless. But when the utterer was supposed to take responsibility of it, they'd just acted like it weren't like that. 

ON TOP OF THAT, because such cowardice permeated into a lot of people, it became culture... so those who were just being straight, was being held "responsible" for the innuendo meanings of what they were not meaning to convey, now everything is off limits and the one who determines the meaning is the one in power... which is dictatorship.

There are different details for every part of the Truth. If we were to set for the preservation of the Truth, to make it desireable, to make it wonderful, amazing, and heaven, we shouldn't underestimated the Truth. Please, I'm not being overdramatic or wanting everything to be ultra polite or something like that, casual things are casuals because they are within the Truthful safety of the Truthful context, including jokes, but when you take away responsibility out of your words, who's going to be responsible?

Bitcoin is valuable I never said otherwise v.03

People like to say that crypto has no underlying values, I somewhat in support of that however I also think that they do have underlying values which are encryption. 

My God is the Spirit of Truth so I value verification, preservation of the Truth at the utmost highest level. So even though I don't own any crypto right now I do think that their concept is admirable. The problem is with shares you could have a ruler which is the PBV ratio but not with crypto. 

If I were to make a cryptocurrency I'd issue a currency for every verification of Truth in existence and diminishing values for the verification of the verifications. However the system should somehow be able to cancel false affirmations and transferred the currency to the correctors. 
I call this system the hostile verification system. 

The main controller of this currency would be its rating system, where each individuals would had a reliable ID, and they would be rated based on how sustainable their proceeds are. If you got currencies that initially came from "liars" or "gullibles" there were higher risks that the money would dissapear in smoke (by system), and if your payments ended up disappearing all the time you're at low priority rating.

I think the one who got this system going on right now is the Wikipedia.com. (Not the rating system, I don't know about that, sorry).

Maybe give it a consideration v.02

What if God is saying: Don't mess with My Words don't mess with My Meanings

My angle here is this:
By the veil of feeling threatened by something not said, people destroyed what belong as standard, universal. So those who are in the rightful position of priorities, were being attacked by unstable chaotic grounds. 

You want to hate but how?

I thought about this theory that nature invoked hatred in order to hunt for lies. Because reality is Truthful and the continuation of reality is the preservation of the Truth. So nature is hunting for lies, and hatred is one that's for that. 

So you have all of this hatred, a mission bestowed by mother nature. But you don't know where is the enemy... which is only logical, that's why it's there (in order to find it and correct it). People offered you different ways you'd hate, through religion, through politics, through competition at work, through envy... but the answer has been found, and it's property. 

Just hate on tresspassers, from there the lines that's made by the law would be solid and then the lies would be more revealable (because the problems that had been faced in the past have been journalled into the law, and the methods people used have been articulated into the law). 

I mean, smart smart people, smart smart A.I could indeed figure out answers but why start from the beginning while the save points are right there

Not all outcomes have the same chances v.02

A coin toss have 2 outcomes, but if you already got heads 5 times in a row, statistically speaking how many 6 heads in a row happened in the universe compared to 5? Also speaks for the chance that the coin was rigged.

Personally I won't look down on these guys

We often find goods that were priced at a "discount" but it's everyday for the last 10 or 20 years. They actually got a point. 

Almost every retail products that we buy is at a discount because of scaling up. If we just lived by ourselves and make the goods ourselves for our own, how much would the cost be? If there were just 100 people wanting to use the products how much would the price be? If it were just one city that wanted to buy the product instead of consumers from all over the country, how much would it be. 

I think it's only objective to display the prices of goods and services if they were not scaled up in order to give us the right information that the things we are enjoying right now is because of the community, and that there's always a chance for the price to go back to "normal". For example oil prices, and grain prices now because of the war, ticket prices now because of COVID, or raw food and ingridients' prices when there were weather problems or pest problems or natural disasters. 

Global Focus Realization v.02

The scarcity of the world is not of time nor money nor energy but of mutual solutions. Solutions are unlimited but we are so limited because we are not giving back enough to our sources of solutions.

Money is prove that the holder has helped and hasn't been helped back. Most of the time we are not giving our money away to those who have not helped us. 

Ok

Now let me get into the point of what I'm trying to say... 

Since money is acknowledgement, that means an industry is a collection of people who created a type of solutions that's focused by a lot of other people (consumers) to be appreciated. 

A profitable industry at a period reflects what the people at the demographic were appreciating. 

But what if an industry became too productive? The solutions were many but the appreciation was not increasing anymore? Then regardless of there were or weren't something to do about it people need to be informed of when that threshhold would arrive. 

Say for example marvel, with a fanbase that like the idea of saving the world it might be less of an economic optimization to dwell on making new marvel movies. Instead the focus is there to make a business that cleans up the ocean for example, then the fanbase's focus would be maintained. 

Let's be honest and acknowledge that we have limited attention span on the same thing. However just because the same thing doesn't capture our focus anymore, doesn't mean that thing is no longer part of our history or our infrastructure of the mind. It would be a waste to just shift our attention to something else without using what was the focus of our attention as a stepping stone or as a reason to move on. 

That's our intuition. 

Market saturation is not a disaster, it's a power. It means the people are ready to do something.

When that threshhold arrived, MR no longer MC (shoutout to Jacob Clifford for emphasizing this concept for me strongly), let us know when's that and let us together do something. ^_^