“Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon Translated: Curt, I have this frame of r

—“Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon

Translated: Curt, I have this frame of reference. Can you talk in my frame of reference?

I get this all the time because some writer somewhere said something that made sense to somebody.

In other words, “Can you do the work for me?”. So instead, say “so and so says this, and I felt this, can you tell me what you think about it?”

Well you know I provided a universal frame of reference right? That’s what acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism do right?

Why is it that I should talk to people who do NOT talk in a universal frame of reference?

I don’t need to find a way to make excuses or lie in some other frame of reference in order to justify my objectives.

It’s up to others to justify their frames of reference and objectives if they violate acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism: the natural law of reciprocity.

Ya see? Its like asking a mathematician using measurements to talk in nonsense like ‘Oh, it’s about a country mile as the crow flies…”

(Excuse my frustration.)