Let's Talk

[Words]

Do you know where to find what to talk about? Talk is often natural, intuitive, directly sourced somewhere. And talking leads to a long series of chained connections that leads to more talking. Talking is fun, but you don't always know what to talk about. No. Let me correct that: "Intuitive Talking" is fun. Spouting nonsense for nonsense is not all the time fun but can be fun when people just want to play with 'talking'. So talking is not always fun because spouting nonsense isn't always fun. But talking because you have something you want to say, because it is intuitive, is 'fun'. So we look for things do talk about.

What do you think?

 

[Words]

What about listening? How do you like it? Do you force it? For yourself? For the continuation of fun? Or is 'fun' unimportant?

 

[nexion]

I created a thread (by this time it will be somewhere below yours) that has one sole purpose of being for any random thought which I feel like vocalizing.

If humans are canvas, then what is the paint? Many different colors... which are bright shades of blue and green, and which are the blackest black? Which do you more associate yourself with, white or black? Two colors which say an immense amount about anything.

What does the canvas look like after it has been painted on? That depends on what painted on it: the black or the white. Which paints which? And what color is the canvas?

I take offense at you saying that any of my random posts (which aren't truly random, as it doesn't exist) are nonsense. There is an incredible tendency of people on this forum to spout nonsense, as you say, but what of someone who does not? What of someone who speaks his mind concretely or abstractly? OR ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY METAPHORS??!?!?!?!

 

[Jesse]

I don't think he was referring to the forums, as your not really talking your typing

 

[nexion]

What about listening? How do you like it? Do you force it? For yourself? For the continuation of fun? Or is 'fun' unimportant?

Listening is infinitely more interesting than talking, but far less important. Clearly, anyone can be saying anything, and it will be vocalizations of that person's inner being, so no matter what the other person takes out of it, he won't understand what the person is saying. It is a societal obligation. Talking is a clarification of self, or a self-fulfilling prophecy, debate is just as much one person trying to prove something to himself as to the opposing party, because maybe some of what the opposing party says actually makes sense. Close your ears, dear children, nothing to hear here, just a bunch of nonsense spoken by nonsense people.

 

[nexion]

I don't think he was referring to the forums, as your not really talking your typing

Semantically different. It is as easy to type random thoughts within the mind entirely unhindered as it is to say them.

 

[Words]

I created a thread (by this time it will be somewhere below yours) that has one sole purpose of being for any random thought which I feel like vocalizing.

If humans are canvas, then what is the paint? Many different colors... which are bright shades of blue and green, and which are the blackest black? Which do you more associate yourself with, white or black? Two colors which say an immense amount about anything.

What does the canvas look like after it has been painted on? That depends on what painted on it: the black or the white. Which paints which? And what color is the canvas?

I take offense at you saying that any of my random posts (which aren't truly random, as it doesn't exist) are nonsense. There is an incredible tendency of people on this forum to spout nonsense, as you say, but what of someone who does not? What of someone who speaks his mind concretely or abstractly? OR ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY METAPHORS??!?!?!?!

No. I don't understand. There is a thread about talking. There is your thread. People are circles that have 'stuff' on them. Like paintings and colors. I wish I meant to insult you but I did not. Explain. Add.

 

[Words]

Listening is infinitely more interesting than talking, but far less important.

Why do you say this?

Clearly, anyone can be saying anything, and it will be vocalizations of that person's inner being, so no matter what the other person takes out of it, he won't understand what the person is saying. It is a societal obligation. Talking is a clarification of self, or a self-fulfilling prophecy, debate is just as much one person trying to prove something to himself as to the opposing party, because maybe some of what the opposing party says actually makes sense. Close your ears, dear children, nothing to hear here, just a bunch of nonsense spoken by nonsense people.

Conversation is also connection. It's not just competition and not everything nonsense.

Semantically different. It is as easy to type random thoughts within the mind entirely unhindered as it is to say them.

Typing takes some 'fun' out of talking. It hinders the fun of 'natural process'. what do you think?

 

[nexion]

Pardon the last few outbursts I had in this thread (what am I, dissociative or something?)

No. I don't understand. There is a thread about talking. There is your thread. People are circles that have 'stuff' on them. Like paintings and colors. I wish I meant to insult you but I did not. Explain. Add.

What makes people, if they are born blank and empty, into who they are? Also, what are the corresponding effects of those stimulants?

Why do you say this?

Conversation is also connection. It's not just competition and not everything nonsense.

Typing takes some 'fun' out of talking. It hinders the fun of 'natural process'. what do you think?

I don't even know what I was saying in this post. Please disregard it, unless it is found that there is some truth contained therein.

I think it is at least true that talking is individually more important than listening to most people. I personally love hearing about other people, their journeys, thoughts, emotions, philosophy, and otherwise, and I occasionally do talk about myself, but not nearly so much in real life as I do on the internet (which I do on the internet mostly to chronicle and record, not because I suspect anyone would or should have some genuine interest).

Perhaps some conversation is connection, but I find it hard to make a connection with many people, as I find they only talk, and possibly think, on such shallow things which entirely transcend my interests. Perhaps such is foolhardy to ask for, but I search for meaningful and deep conversations with others, and yet that it something which is not so readily discussed. Maybe all of my behaviours are self-destructive...

"Natural process"? What is this you speak of?

I actually prefer typing to any form of talking, most any day. I can type something much more coherently, concisely, and completely than I ever could talking. Neither do I derive "fun' out of talking (or most anything). I am not going to say I don't enjoy having fun, but it is often difficult to come by, and then I often find fun in things which others would not even dream of finding fun in. "Fun" is the sense most people use it is an entirely foreign concept to me. I talk to others to learn, create, explore, all of which take a great role in my everyday life, and often I talk of ideas or thoughts I have had not even expecting the person to understand it, but merely to bounce ideas. It does make me quite angry when someone either isn't listening, interjects my deep and carefully created thoughts with something almost entirely useless to me, and believes me, this happens a lot, and I'm sure such lends itself to my generally negative outlook on life and people. Sure, I may isolate myself at times, but it won't be because I don't have a reason to. I may not have hope or faith, but it is not because I've never been given any reasons not to. Welcome to my world (is your world similar). Feel free to bask in my extreme discontent and criticism, if you so incline, though not many do.

 

[Words]

Pardon the last few outbursts I had in this thread (what am I, dissociative or something?)

No. I have to thank you. It was interesting. And why would you be 'dissociative'? That doesn't make any sense.

What makes people, if they are born blank and empty, into who they are? Also, what are the corresponding effects of those stimulants?

In terms of meaning? I don't think people are born blank and empty.

I don't even know what I was saying in this post. Please disregard it, unless it is found that there is some truth contained therein.

"Take the good stuff and leave!"

I think it is at least true that talking is individually more important than listening to most people. I personally love hearing about other people, their journeys, thoughts, emotions, philosophy, and otherwise, and I occasionally do talk about myself, but not nearly so much in real life as I do on the internet (which I do on the internet mostly to chronicle and record, not because I suspect anyone would or should have some genuine interest).

I am doing active listening. I read it in some book once. You have to smile to someone to know they are positively being listened to and that is precisely what I am intending to do.

Perhaps some conversation is connection, but I find it hard to make a connection with many people, as I find they only talk, and possibly think, on such shallow things which entirely transcend my interests. Perhaps such is foolhardy to ask for, but I search for meaningful and deep conversations with others, and yet that it something which is not so readily discussed.

I think all conversations have potential for this thing you're looking for. I call it 'thing' because I don't know how to define it.

Maybe all of my behaviours are self-destructive...

and your reasoning for this?

"Natural process"? What is this you speak of?

Usually when you talk(in person), your 'critical thought' is less than compared to text.

'Critical' doesn't always mean fun, it can mean stress, which can lead to prevention of expression. 'Critical' can mean trying to process it into a social filter, which is tiring for 'some people'.

'Intuitive flow', as mentioned in my OP, is the source of continuous talk, which is continuous fun. The prevention of this flow is the prevention of 'natural process'.

What do you think?

I actually prefer typing to any form of talking, most any day. I can type something much more coherently, concisely, and completely than I ever could talking. Neither do I derive "fun' out of talking (or most anything). I am not going to say I don't enjoy having fun, but it is often difficult to come by, and then I often find fun in things which others would not even dream of finding fun in. "Fun" is the sense most people use it is an entirely foreign concept to me. I talk to others to learn, create, explore, all of which take a great role in my everyday life, and often I talk of ideas or thoughts I have had not even expecting the person to understand it, but merely to bounce ideas. It does make me quite angry when someone either isn't listening, interjects my deep and carefully created thoughts with something almost entirely useless to me, and believes me, this happens a lot, and I'm sure such lends itself to my generally negative outlook on life and people. Sure, I may isolate myself at times, but it won't be because I don't have a reason to. I may not have hope or faith, but it is not because I've never been given any reasons not to. Welcome to my world (is your world similar). Feel free to bask in my extreme discontent and criticism, if you so incline, though not many do.

So coherence, conciseness and completion are sources of fun for you?

 

[nexion]

No. I have to thank you. It was interesting. And why would you be 'dissociative'? That doesn't make any sense.

It was either a true thought, or something which i entirely fabricated. At any rate, I don't understand what I wrote in that post anymore.

In terms of meaning? I don't think people are born blank and empty.

What about in terms of relative goodness, of the difference between an angel and a demon? What causes such a dichotomy?

I am doing active listening. I read it in some book once. You have to smile to someone to know they are positively being listened to and that is precisely what I am intending to do.

I understand not the significance of this post. What if I were to fake the smile? What if I were to smile at the thought of listening, but not listening at all? Are we deaf, or unwilling, unreceptive? But, then again... if true in them, how much more true in myself? What is it that I am unreceptive, closed to, that I would, with all ardour, push away with force, even destroy myself or others in an attempt to not brush with it?

I think all conversations have potential for this thing you're looking for. I call it 'thing' because I don't know how to define it.

Maybe. Maybe it is the other way around. Maybe no matter how much I think or do or say or talk I will never find what I am looking for.

and your reasoning for this?

In this instance, the mere thought that such a thing could be possible, but most likely isn't, should suffice, I think.

Usually when you talk(in person), your 'critical thought' is less than compared to text.

'Critical' doesn't always mean fun, it can mean stress, which can lead to prevention of expression. 'Critical' can mean trying to process it into a social filter, which is tiring for 'some people'.

'Intuitive flow', as mentioned in my OP, is the source of continuous talk, which is continuous fun. The prevention of this flow is the prevention of 'natural process'.

What do you think?

Do you talk to derive some sense of fun? Do you think everyone does? Aside from that fact, I think I would have to agree with what you are saying, essentially, that more expression usually exists in spoken word.

The sentence I bolded, however... maybe this is my form of some sort of delusion (perhaps from your perception, at least), but I really don't think so. I like to think that it is easier to disregard social filters or obligations in text, since nothing that one may say in text has any immediate and/or lasting ramifications, and being that most people online have no acquaintance with the individual doing the talking. True expression is stifled for me in reality, where I always have to be on guard for the judging eyes and disapproving glances from many people that I know, like they expect me to believe exactly as they believe or see exactly as they see. It is particularly disheartening.

So coherence, conciseness and completion is a source of fun for you?

Maybe... I really haven't looked into whether such terms as 'fun' and many other things aren't only semantically different. I think it is more likely that these things are part of something larger which means much to me... not necessarily fun, but that depends on how you define fun. Which, I suppose I should not go so far as to say that fun is always meaningless, but maybe what I seek is more meaningful to me than any sort of fun ever could be.

 

[Cavallier]

The way Pb and Words circle each other in their discussions is fascinating.

That's not an insult.

 

[hazelbite]

man, if i could figure out small talk i could be a normal member of society. i've even read books on small talk, but it just feels so fake when i try to apply it, like the other person will know that i don't actually care what the answers to the questions i'm asking are. but that is the nature of small talk, i know, i think. i just can't get the rhythm down.

but ask me what i think about something relevant (to me) and i'm all in.

 

[echoplex]

Talking can be fun, but with some people it can be unbearably painful. For me, the most enjoyable conversations are always a bit silly. Even 'serious' discussions should always have room for plenty of humor and randomness. Ideally, there should always be a sense that I could go in any number of directions and my partner would not only follow, but would not be offended or annoyed in the least. I need to know I can 'go there' without the flow being broken, if that makes any sense.

I find it hard to speak with people who talk like salesmen (and prolly think like them too). By that I mean, all their effort seems spent on selling a viewpoint, and so they're trying to control the direction of the flow. If I go anywhere that compromises their precious viewpoint, it's as if I've committed a foul. What's funny is that even if I agree with their viewpoint it still feels like I'm being controlled. Basically, some people are too serious.

Ah, but then there are times I'm too serious, I'm sure. Maybe I only notice it in others 'on time'. It's taken me years to see my own hypocrisy, apparently.

EDIT: wtf am I talking about, I try to sell viewpoints all the time. It's still annoying though. I stand by that.


Still standing...

...

 

[Words]

What about in terms of relative goodness, of the difference between an angel and a demon? What causes such a dichotomy?

hm... the mind's need for arrangement? I hear people love to simplify. And I'm guessing that also leads to simplifying 'unknowns' as well.

Experience(Society). Genetics(Genetically Constructed Worldview). Internal Moral Standard. "Soul".

I might not be understanding your question. Is it 'where is morality from?'

I understand not the significance of this post.

I smile to fill the gap of 'no comment'. No comment, I think, is too inaccurate for my intentions. At least, with a smile, there's something...to interact with.

What if I were to fake the smile? What if I were to smile at the thought of listening, but not listening at all? Are we deaf, or unwilling, unreceptive? But, then again... if true in them, how much more true in myself? What is it that I am unreceptive, closed to, that I would, with all ardour, push away with force, even destroy myself or others in an attempt to not brush with it?

It's not so much for what it is and it's 'truth', it's more about intentions. A 'small smile' may seem little but I think it's an important detail we often miss on. They can express and manipulate. I have this female classmate who practiced fake-laughing all the time. It seemed real but everytime she did this, there's always some sort of effect within the classroom. Her intention was probably somewhere along those lines.

I don't understand the latter questions.

Maybe. Maybe it is the other way around. Maybe no matter how much I think or do or say or talk I will never find what I am looking for.

We are talking about talking with people, yes? How much have you acted for it?

In this instance, the mere thought that such a thing could be possible, but most likely isn't, should suffice, I think.

hm.... where did you find 'most likely'? and why would fruitless search be 'fruitless'?

Do you talk to derive some sense of fun? Do you think everyone does?

oh yes. I think 'talk' is far limited, shortened, and repressed if 'fun' was sourced indirectly, outside and/or not out of talking itself.

To a certain extent, I believe everyone does.

I like to think that it is easier to disregard social filters or obligations in text, since nothing that one may say in text has any immediate and/or lasting ramifications, and being that most people online have no acquaintance with the individual doing the talking. True expression is stifled for me in reality, where I always have to be on guard for the judging eyes and disapproving glances from many people that I know, like they expect me to believe exactly as they believe or see exactly as they see. It is particularly disheartening.

Interesting. Though I still think one is 'more open' via direct conversation than text.

what I seek is more meaningful to me than any sort of fun ever could be.

huh. no matter what moral/ethical/logical obligation I may have. I think 'fun' would always be encased in a special corner of my heart.

Do you 'seek' things out of need or intrigue?

EDIT: wtf am I talking about, I try to sell viewpoints all the time.

Yes. WTF are you talking about?

 

[echoplex]

Yes. WTF are you talking about?

Here's the short version: Conversations where the other is focused on selling a worldview are unpleasant for me, but then I realize I often do the same thing to others.

 

[AlisaD]

@ OP
Talking - you open your mouth and stuff comes out

Listening - you open your mind and stuff comes in

A good conversation - you forget about what's appropriate and open both - it turns into a form of art

A bad conversation - you choose to enforce control of the gates, filtering either what goes in or what comes out - it turns into boring, lonely time

 

[cheese]

echoplex*, I don't think you try to direct lives in the way these people do. It's more a matter of expressing and arguing your position because you think it's right, but you turn around just as easily when cornered (often when cornered by yourself, which happens pretty often and really is admirable). I'd even say these people are more interested in converting/recruiting, rather than actually discusisng an idea or expressing strong feelings about an idea. It's more controlling, because there's no intermediary to grapple with (the idea, or individual feelings) it's just you vs the onslaught of their invasion.

*BASED ON SOME BITS OF TEXT ON AN INTERNET FORUM

 

[DarkGreen]

If humans are canvas, then what is the paint? Many different colors... which are bright shades of blue and green, and which are the blackest black? Which do you more associate yourself with, white or black? Two colors which say an immense amount about anything.

This theory is amazing, I draw characatures but I ask each subject to pick which color they want to be lined in and they invariably choose their favorite color. When they look at the charicatures and the person the color always seems to suit them unless they lie to themselves.

Say a person likes orange, he'll usually have a deeper reason than 'it's a pretty color'. Favorite colors represent something in our eyes that's important. Hae you ever notice how little kids like the color 'Light Blue'? Their experiences haven't been shaped enough to like anything different.

It's Just a theory but, colors have a deeper meaning to people's lifestyle than just a color.

 

[Words]

Here's the short version: Conversations where the other is focused on selling a worldview are unpleasant for me, but then I realize I often do the same thing to others.

Selling stuff isn't that bad as long as it doesn't disrupt the flow of conversation, as long as it doesn't disclose and turn a blind eye to different answers. That wouldn't be 'fun'.

Why do you think it's unpleasant?

@ OP
Talking - you open your mouth and stuff comes out

Listening - you open your mind and stuff comes in

I didn't know that.

A good conversation - you forget about what's appropriate and open both - it turns into a form of art

A bad conversation - you choose to enforce control of the gates, filtering either what goes in or what comes out - it turns into boring, lonely time

so why is it boring when you filter the 'stuff'?

echoplex*, I don't think you try to direct lives in the way these people do. It's more a matter of expressing and arguing your position because you think it's right, but you turn around just as easily when cornered (often when cornered by yourself, which happens pretty often and really is admirable). I'd even say these people are more interested in converting/recruiting, rather than actually discusisng an idea or expressing strong feelings about an idea. It's more controlling, because there's no intermediary to grapple with (the idea, or individual feelings) it's just you vs the onslaught of their invasion.

*BASED ON SOME BITS OF TEXT ON AN INTERNET FORUM

I think it's a matter of preference. Some want to 'control', some just want to enjoy the ride. None is ethically inferior. Though that could depend on what you ethics is. I'm not saying you said otherwise but just to add. "is it 'good' to control others?".

Perhaps echoplex is mainly about the idea but I don't think it's accurate to say that people can generally avoid blatant assertion for indirect purposes such as "being right and superior". I don't know much about echo but I think, like everyoen else, he is prone to leading himself astray.

It reminds me of this:

In contrast to INTJs, an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out.

Maybe there is some truth to that that quote and maybe it justifies certain actions.



To some, it is infuriating to join in 'endless babble'. In other words, 'open' is annoying.

 

[AlisaD]

I didn't know that.

Why does that make you mad? Since when do you get mad at all?

so why is it boring when you filter the 'stuff'?

Because if you're filtering what comes out, you are presuming that the other person is incapable of understanding what you really think.
Once you start filtering what comes in, you are presuming that what the other person is saying is not worth hearing.
You end up all alone in your own head, but still hearing annoying voices that distract you from thinking about what you would like to be thinking about.

Think of it as trying to dance with a partner by reading something like this. It doesn't make a very good dance.

 

[Words]

Why does that make you mad? Since when do you get mad at all?

Wronge emoticon.

Because if you're filtering what comes out, you are presuming that the other person is incapable of understanding what you really think.
Once you start filtering what comes in, you are presuming that what the other person is saying is not worth hearing.
You end up all alone in your own head, but still hearing annoying voices that distract you from thinking about what you would like to be thinking about.

Think of it as trying to dance with a partner by reading something like this. It doesn't make a very good dance.

I'm not sure if I understand but it is interesting. It seems that conversation is like dancing. People can understand each other without having to direct which steps they're going to choose. Without filtration means without lack of understanding and high level of connection. Filtration translates into degradation of connection. or is filtration the cause of low connection?

The more you filter, the more connection is blocked. This leads to being alone.

Connection gives intuitive understanding.

 

[AlisaD]

Wronge emoticon.

Ahh, I was there for a sec

I'm not sure if I understand but it is interesting. It seems that conversation is like dancing. People can understand each other without having to direct which steps they're going to choose. Without filtration means without lack of understanding and high level of connection. Filtration translates into degradation of connection. or is filtration the cause of low connection?

The more you filter, the more connection is blocked. This leads to being alone.

Connection gives intuitive understanding.

I wasn't sure that I was explaining it very well, but you understood what I mean perfectly. *nods approvingly*

 

[mke2686]

i prefer to listen over talking the reason is that i like to try to size people up and i feel that by doing the talking people will do the same to me and that i dislike because i feel that i am very different than most people maybe im not maybe im just a hypocrite

 

[Words]

I've burnt up all known stimulation for today. More accurately, I've burnt up all easily accesible stimulation. Why do I like to use the word stimulation? It's most accurate that's why. Unlike the word "interesting things", stimulation is directly considered as subjective whereas the word "interesting" obliges you to follow it with something in reference to yourself such "to me" or "in my opinion."

This activity of writing is stimulation but more accurately, my brain activity is stimulation.

The often question after exhausting all supplies of stimulation is "What else is there?". That sentence will probably be one of the most reoccurring sentences of my life.

huh. I guess its scary to run out of ideas since it would mean to run out of activity. (Stimulation is like anesthesia, but only if the person already started anesthesia.) In that sense, it's more of an addiction. aaand...I've run out of ideas again.

 

[Moocow]

You can never run out of ideas, you just have to take a few steps backwards to figure out which doors you've been ignoring.

 

[Awaken]

@ OP
Talking - you open your mouth and stuff comes out

Listening - you open your mind and stuff comes in

A good conversation - you forget about what's appropriate and open both - it turns into a form of art

A bad conversation - you choose to enforce control of the gates, filtering either what goes in or what comes out - it turns into boring, lonely time

I agree with this. In order to "connect" in a conversation, a person has to do exactly this or else they are not really "listening". I try to explain this to some people, but most do not get it. Then wonder why when they speak to certain people they lack understanding.

It is sort of like going on a journey together. If I am talking to someone about something more than small talk, I have to kind of take whatever they say as being true in order to follow it thoroughly. In contrast, what happens for most people is that they listen with their counterargument already in mind which clouds their brain to what the other person is actually saying.

It is hard because we share the same language, but have so many subjective meanings behind a word. When talking to another person it is easy to simply use your own subjective meaning for a word without exploring other possibilities that the "talker" may be intending by the word. To me "listening" is about approximating someone elses POV as adequately as possible. There is a very subtle difference between "listening" and simply "hearing", yet a huge difference in understanding that comes with each as an action.

 

[Lobstrich]

Do you know where to find what to talk about? Talk is often natural, intuitive, directly sourced somewhere. And talking leads to a long series of chained connections that leads to more talking. Talking is fun, but you don't always know what to talk about. No. Let me correct that: "Intuitive Talking" is fun. Spouting nonsense for nonsense is not all the time fun but can be fun when people just want to play with 'talking'. So talking is not always fun because spouting nonsense isn't always fun. But talking because you have something you want to say, because it is intuitive, is 'fun'. So we look for things do talk about.

What do you think?

This felt to me like you were 'spouting shit' You repeated yourself around 4 times.

 

[Words]

This felt to me like you were 'spouting shit' You repeated yourself around 4 times.

Do you say this as opinion(your "feeling") or as an argument? If an argument, then please elaborate your reasoning. How have I repeated myself 4 times?

Yes. I am offended. And now, I criticize myself for even replying. I don't even want to argue for something I consciously judge as small. But, whatever, annoyance has become my motivation for response. Explain yourself.

 

[Lobstrich]

Do you say this as opinion(your "feeling") or as an argument? If an argument, then please elaborate your reasoning. How have I repeated myself 4 times?

Yes. I am offended. And now, I criticize myself for even replying. I don't even want to argue for something I consciously judge as small. But, whatever, annoyance has become my motivation for response. Explain yourself.

Elaborate? How? You said the same thing several times.. "talking is fun" - "no talking is not fun it's only fun with not psouting" - "So spouting with no talking is not fun" - "and talking without spouting is great" - "Which makes talking fun?" etc. That is kind of what I read your post as.
Don't know if I'm just way to tired to be on the INTP forum, If that is the case, my bad.

And offended? I never asked if you would get offended? Or if you were?

 

[Words]

Elaborate? How? You said the same thing several times.. "talking is fun" - "no talking is not fun it's only fun with not psouting" - "So spouting with no talking is not fun" - "and talking without spouting is great" - "Which makes talking fun?" etc. That is kind of what I read your post as.
Don't know if I'm just way to tired to be on the INTP forum, If that is the case, my bad.

Ok. Talking = X. Fun = Y. Intuitive = Z. Long series of connections = A. Dont know = B. Nonsense = C. Play with talking = D

Do you know where to find what to talk about?

X is often Z. X leads into A which leads into more X. X is Y but sometimes B(X). No, let me correct that. X that is Z is Y. In other words X is not Y. X about C for C is not always Y but can be Y when people just want to D. So, X is not always Y because C is not always Y. But X that is Z is Y.

There. where is the "shit" and where is this "four times" bullshit?

And offended? I never asked if would get offended? Or if you were?

lol. nvm.