Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • iow: we tend to retain both greek and victorian ‘grace’ in our philosophical int

    iow: we tend to retain both greek and victorian ‘grace’ in our philosophical interpretations of others. It’s a tradition. However, I’ve worked in falsification and the via negativa, meaning I study ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, denial, projection, accusation, gossiping, rallying, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing… you get the picture.
    Turns out that some of us are trying to discover the truth because it’s an advantage to us, but most people are trying to discover an advantage regardless of whether it’s true or not.
    And that’s what means democracy cannot survive without limiting public speech in public to the public in matters public, to that which is testifiable. (truthful). Anf for many people they are incapable of disambiguating the differences.

    Reply addressees: @number10fancy

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-26 20:22:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816932198458482688

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816928108508774807

  • Now try belief and bias despite the evidence

    Now try belief and bias despite the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-26 20:19:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816931323732213887

    Reply addressees: @number10fancy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816928108508774807

  • Should we distinguish between motivated reasoning and motivated belief? That see

    Should we distinguish between motivated reasoning and motivated belief? That seems to disambiguate a little more clearly when it’s clear people are believing what they wish to, and it has nothing to do with the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-26 19:57:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816925895652737121

  • Should we distinguish between motivated reasoning and motivated belief? That see

    Should we distinguish between motivated reasoning and motivated belief? That seems to disambiguate a little more clearly when it’s clear people are believing what they wish to, and it has nothing to do with the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-26 19:57:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816925895589822464

  • Value judgements are understandable differences

    Value judgements are understandable differences.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-26 03:58:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816684503672176850

    Reply addressees: @mattbegins @StephenKing

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816661262010581434

  • General tendency of systematizers to over systematize into an abstraction that a

    General tendency of systematizers to over systematize into an abstraction that assists in contemplation but which has no correspondence with existence.

    Other than empiricists and naturalists I don’t often think about philosophers at all other than to wonder ‘how did they get it…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-25 17:31:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816526827059302479

    Reply addressees: @superkanga

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816525970184241631

  • “Most think tanks don’t do much thinking. It’s just bias promotion and propagand

    –“Most think tanks don’t do much thinking. It’s just bias promotion and propaganda. Instead, we work as a ‘decision’ tank so to speak. We seek decidability – truth. And then we suggestion options from there.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-25 14:40:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816483741411528809

  • “Most criticisms of objectivity fail to realize that it’s the most communal conc

    –“Most criticisms of objectivity fail to realize that it’s the most communal concept humanity has yet articulated.”– @MattPirkowski

    Well done. With elegant prose.

    Further Clarification of the Value of Objectivity:
    (a) commensurable (consistent and correspondent)
    (b) testifiable (truth, trust)
    (c) advantageous (utility)
    (d) evolutionary (adaptive)
    (e) communal (asset of the commons).

    These are the most expensive commons that any group can invest in and preserve, because human beings evolved to negotiate pragmatically not speak truthfully. And the psychological and emotional burden (cost) of truthful speech regardless of cost to one’s opportunities, self image, status, and group selfish advantage is the costly investment into the commons (assets) of a population that is possible – particularly because it is so hard to develop, and requires so few defectors to undermine.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-24 16:34:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816149890243702784

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816013572696334466

  • RT @WalterIII: “The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that yo

    RT @WalterIII: “The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to intuition for decidability. And intuition…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-24 00:58:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815914539839545369

  • “King of the Hill Games” RESEARCH: Everything I Do Is In The Context of An Exper

    “King of the Hill Games”

    RESEARCH: Everything I Do Is In The Context of An Experiment, Run As A King of The Hill Game.
    What I Do Here: An Experimental Classroom
    For new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad.
    Games are Experiments where I use the public for research. So I trade education for research participation.
    King of the hill games are the alternative to Surveys – and surveys are useless because they are dependent upon reporting – which humans are incapable of honestly answering, while king of the hill games demonstrate by evidence what you are willing to defend. We can learn what you intuit and what you believe.
    Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism.
    I slay a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and do so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.)
    But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution.
    I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth.
    Acting in Good Faith: Running Experiments on the Audience
    But playing King of The Hill games? Is that teaching and researching in good faith?
    Well, I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith:
    I don’t have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments.
    In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information.
    I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs.
    This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position.
    And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model.
    In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result.
    I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.)
    Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so.
    So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibility for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from.
    Honestly? The cost of dealing with all these shitty, selfish, arrogant,immature, ignorant, people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool.
    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies)
    0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it.
    1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not.
    2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse.
    3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution.
    4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:
    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.
    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.
    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.
    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.
    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.
    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.
    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).
    5) And we teach what to do with that method:
    (a) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.
    (b) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.
    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily. A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us) A set of demands (new constitution and policies) A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully) A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)
    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.
    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.
    We can easily win. It’s just a choice.
    5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    King of The Hill Game: Teaching Men
    My Version of The Socratic Method: Adversarialism (Competition)
    The difference between how I teach and the mainstream is that I create king of the hill games so that men feel comfortable playing the game of climbing to the top.
    I teach as by sport not by lecture. I teach by creating games that men will compete in. I have developed the King of the Hill strategy of teaching because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.
    This is how men are best taught. Instead of asking questions I start arguments. Instead of preaching an angle, I attack a proposition and force others to defend it. Instead of assuming equality I play king of the hill and bait them into attacking me. Instead of writing essays of appeal I write arguments to criticize.
    Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if its backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument.
    I post things that I disagree with, or that can be interpreted other ways, to start debate. Congratulate even the smallest success. Edit and quote others to inspire them to keep trying. Audit the feed and comments. Ask others to contribute or handle those i can’t. Run experiments so others can help me and themselves. Keep a loose inventory and estimate of people who are talented and drip ideas to them as needed while letting them own the discoveries they make.
    I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage people to refute them.
    This is how men learn best. It is the method of professing, teaching, debating that is the least affected by norm, signaling, and pretense. It is how men can and should be taught.
    I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my “classroom” so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition – and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education; the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity.
    Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.)
    My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me” – bait men to try to take me down. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development).
    Yes, there is a difference between contributors, commenters, followers, and lurkers – but it’s only in the degree of participation. Everybody learns.
    King of The Hill  is educational entertainment and theatre. That is why this game works.
    Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.
    The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases.
    The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. We Put Dominance Play to Constructive Use. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.
    Teaching by the king of the hill game weeds out the betas faster than all other tactics combined.  Why? Female/Beta Moral intuition cannot resist self defense. It’s so obvious that once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s like NAXALT bait in a Pringles can.
    Those that can’t learn as men – I understand. But if they can’t they are of no use as judges.
    You might not realize that I know this is a game – and that we are playing a game – until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview. Because I’m not very much like my online persona.
    But strategically speaking, (a) controversy is more interesting than discourse which any tv producer will tell you. (b) interest draws attention for reasons I’ve stated in the post above, (c) the king of the hill game requires me creating ‘bait’ by being a ‘pompous ass’. (d) filtering and educating men is best done by this competition because fools, intellectually dishonest, and the like cannot survive that competition, and can’t stand it. (e) it allows me to recruit the smartest people and leave behind the dim and dishonest.
    I mean. I’m a very smart guy. I do things for what are usually very deliberate reasons. I learned how to teach men who have potential. Filter out those that do not.
    And that’s what I do.
    (Masculinity. Aversarialism. King of the Hill. War)
    Teach men Adversarialism. Teach by (forgiving) king of the hill games. Teach men across their ages, not by their age – to lead, advise, follow.
    Teach by metaphor: 1. Kings (dominant male leadership – quarterbacks) 2. Bishops (cunning, intelligence, spies, advisors) 3. Knights (fast, maneuver – receivers, raiders ) 4. Rooks (Heavy Infantry – Bearers – linebackers) 5. Pawns (Infantry – Defense) 6. Fools ( Messengers, Negotiators) 7. Queens (Ambassadors)
    Teach Men
    • War – Adversarialism … … … (Evolution) … – Politics – the Proxy for War … … … … (Political War) … … – Law – The Organization of Polities … … … … … (Procedural War) … … … – Economics – the funding of Polities and War. … … … … … … (Productive War) … … … … – Engineering – the manipulation of the world … … … … … … … (Innovative war) … … … … … – Testimony – the art of truthful speech … … … … … … … … (War against ignorance error deceit) … … … … … … … – Negotiation – The art of compromise.
    The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute.
    The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization.
    So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining.
    Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences.
    Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.
    I hate blocking people and my block list was very short until peers and followers asked me to stop wasting my time; to clean up the feed; and to preserve the educational environment.
    I teach the Law and its application. I run a class 24×7 to a global audience. My goal is to preserve the environment.
    I (We) Block For: 1 – Wasting my (our) time. Which consists of: 2 – Ridicule, Sarcasm, Gossiping, Rallying Shaming, Moralizing (GSRM) as a substitute for argument. 3 – Memes as a substitute for argument. (no meme zone) 4 – Intellectual Dishonesty in argument 5 – Antagonism as a substitute for argument. 6 – Faith or Sophism as a substitute for argument. 7 – Occasionally: Argument from Ignorance and Arrogance (attacking the work while not knowing enough to do so.) 8 – Occasionally also: Common Stupidity, Schizotypal stupidity (paranoia), Other Psychological Problems.
    I (we) Do Not Block For – Good natured teasing. I am easy to tease. Height, age, generation, weight, aspieness, number of women/divorces, tech stuff, abundance of typing mistakes, being a 1%er, teaching by king of the hill game, the difference between my real and online personalities. You know, the list is endless.
    NOTE: I (we) practice reciprocity. So if you use GSRM against me (us) , I(we) will use it against you … and then return to the central point – over, and over, and over again.

    Thanks for your time and attention.
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-23 16:19:45 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1815783872728101073