(July 2, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(July 2, 2018 at 12:41 pm)Drich Wrote: No i got it the first time... I was trying to give you an out, by reestablishing the parameters of how I identify what is 'known to me.' Whether or not a subject is 'known to me well enough to fit your standard is irrelevant. As I'm often times required to speak to the most basic understanding in a given thread. if my understanding or answer seems overly simplistic or even too simple it is because i perceive a lack of the basics even though you perceive yourselves as masters of anything religious so I must word things far more simplisticly than I would like.
So by redefining what is know to something I plan to say, takes the ability to judge content out of the equation as an objective to judge a 'knowable.' Again when something or a primise is unknown to me I will simply have an urge to write and I begin sometimes in the middle or end and then have to go back an rearrange paragraphs so they all flow. That to me is/was an unknown. As it is like I'm given a word or two at a time and I get to read it all for the first time as I am proofing a text.
Again content not with standing, that would be how I would define something out of my purview that was given to me.
Doesn't address the point I was making, but by all means, continue spewing bullshit if you think it will get you out of the jam you have put yourself in.
I'm not in a jam. I'm in a 'measuring' contest with someone who has come up short and is trying to save face.