03-31-2023-0657 - POEM {THE WOMANS RESPECT FOR THE MAN IS RELEVANT. ON A MINOR NOTE OR SCALE. THERE IS NO WEIGHT ALLOWANCE. [DRAFT]}

USA NAC DOM

THE WOMANS RESPECT FOR THE MAN IS RELEVANT. ON A MINOR NOTE OR SCALE. THERE IS NO WEIGHT ALLOWANCE.

MODEL OF CHARACTER: STEPHANIE ANTON DDS

NOTE. SNOW WHITE CODE TOWN, WOMEN MODELS, BUILDS, LIFESTYLE, APPRECIATIONS, PAST TESTING, ETC.. [DRAFT]

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

NOTE. [SOME JOKES]

EMPTY, ISOLATION, CONTRIBUTION (REFINEMENT, IMAGE, IMPARTIAL, PIOUS, STRAIGHT), DISTANCE, TIME AND SPACE AWARE, UNAWARE/INNOCENT/AMNESIA/INTELLIGENCE/FINE-PROCESSING/LIMITATION/ETC., PRUDENT, CAUTIOUS, RESERVED, RETICENT, REFINED, REFRAIN, REPOSE, DISPOSITIONARY, TACT, COURTESY, CORDIAL, CONCISE, TERSE, APATHY, ALOOF, COLD, AFAR, VAGUE, STATUESQUE, POSITION, ROLE, DUTY, OBLIGATION, POSE, TERM, SCRIPT, BALANCE, CALIBRATION, MEASURE, DIGNITY, DISCRETION, INHIBITION, AMNESIA, HOLE/CORE, CONDENSED, REFRACTORY, REFLECTION, OBTRUSE, DISSIPATIVE, PROPRIETY, POISE, ELEGANCE, GRACE, DELICACY, FRAGILITY, FEEBILITY, EPHEMERALITY, TRANSIENT, MOMENT, FLAT, UNIDIMENSIONAL COMPETENCE [SECOND RANK] WITH ADORNMENT ETC., UNCERTAIN, POSSIBILITY, RATIONALITY, REASON, LOGIC, OBJECTIVE, OBSERVATORY, FIXED, STATIC, STABLE, STANDARD, SECURE, STATUS, STATE, SYSTEMATIZED, METHODOLOGICAL, NORMALIZATION/EQUALIZATION, SPINSTER (TYPE), LIBRARY/KNOWLEDGE-VALUE, TRUTH WORTH, CALCULATION, DEFERRAL, SUBMISSION, DETERRANT, DISMISSAL, DISPLACEMENT, DEFLECTION, DEDUCTION, SUBTRACTION, LOSS, REDUCTION, ANOREXIA, DISBURSEMENT, MATHEMATICAL, MAGICAL, MUNDANE, FAST, QUIET, TRACELESS, INVISIBLE, SKINNY, EVASIVE, AVOIDANT, ESCAPERIE, GHOSTLY, DISAPPEARING, NUCLEAR RATE, ORIGIN, FIELD, PRINT, UNKNOWN, UNCERTAINTY, SIGNIFICANCE, STATISTICS, SCATTER PLOT, ENTROPY, ENTHALPY, SCIENCE, RESEARCH, LEVEL, UNKNOWN, STRUCTURE, FUNCTION, ORDER, ORGANIZATION, PRECEDENCE, PRIORITY, HIERARCHY, CLASS, CLASSIFICATION, CATEGORY, CATEGORIZATION, TAXONOMY, ANIMAL SCIENCE, VETERINARIAN, VETERINARY, EMBRYOLOGY, EMBRYOLOGIST, PHYSICIAN, PHYSICS, MEDICAL, IMAGING/PHOTOGRAPHY, COMPUTER/PRINTER/TELEGRAPH/TELEPHONE/TELEVISION/NUCLEAR_REACTOR/ETC., TRAINS, PLANES, SCHEDULE, TIME, APPEARANCE, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, TINY, TWO POINT ANALYTICS, TIME DIFFERENCE, BEHAVIOR SCRIPT, LIFESTYLE, STANDARD OF LIVING, QUALITY OF LIFE, QUALITY, QUANTITY, INTAKE, EXPENDITURE, BASAL METABOLIC RATE EQUATION, EQUATION, SCHOFIELD, STARVATION, HOLOCAUST, RESTING METABOLIC RATE EQUATION, BURN PATIENT WARD, CELLULOSE, BIOLOGY OF HUMAN STARVATION, PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN STARVATION, REFERENCE, REFERENCE TEXTBOOK, TEXT, PRINT, PUBLICATION, PUBLISHER, PROFESSIONAL, PROFESSION, METALSMITH, BLACKSMITH, MINES, BOMBS, REBUILD, SURGERY, ANTIBIOTICS, PHARMACY, TECHNOLOGY, INTERDISCIPLINARY/BRANCH/SUBFIELD, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, FOOD PRODUCT DESIGN, STUDY, SCHOLAR/SCHOLASTIC, ACADEMIA/ACADEMIC, INTELLIGENCE, INTELLECTUAL, INTEL, ZERO, ZERO POINT EQUILIBRIUM, ZERO POINT, POINT, OUTLIER, INFERENCE, REASON, DEFINITION, DEFINER, DESCRIPTOR, IDENTIFIER, CLASSIFIER, QUALIFIER, QUANTIFIER, LANGUAGE, LINGUISTICS, ENGINEERING, MARBLE MAKERS, ARMED FORCES, PSYCHOLOGY, MIRROR, DUST, GLITTER, GRID, POWDER, SMOKE, RADIOACTIVE PARTICLE, BURNS, STEAM, ACCUMULATOR, GENERATOR, REGENERATION, REPLICATION, REBUILD, AUTOMATIC, SEMI-AUTOMATIC, DEFAULT, RESET, DELETE, ERASE, OMIT, ERROR, PROPAGATION OF ERROR, STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, CONSTRUCT/CONDITION/CONFOUND/CONSTRAINT/ETC., CONFLICT OF INTEREST, INTERFERENCE/COGNITIVE DISSONANCE/ETC., COMPLICATIONS/INTERVENER, WORD RESCUES/HEROES, FORMAT/FONT/TYPE/SIZE/FILE-STRUCTURE/ETC., RELIABLE/ACCURATE/PRECISE/ETC., ANALOG/CONTINUOUS, DIGITAL/DISCRETE, INTEGRAL/DERIVATIVE/CALCULUS, LINEAR ALGEBRA, SIGNAL TRANSCEPTION, HYPOTHETICAL, RHETORIC, ANALOGY, ALLEGORY, ADAGE, FIGURATIVE/LITERAL, OBJECT, OBJECT AWARE, IMPLICATION/STATEMENTION, TANGIBLE/INTANGIBLE, SYNTAX/DICTION, SEMANTICS, CONNOTATORY/DENOTATORY, LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE/OBSERVER/OBSERVATION, FACT, RELEVANT/IRRELEVANT, REMEDIATION/RESTITUTION/RECTIFICATION/MITIGATION/EXONERATION/CLEMENCY/AMNESTY/VINDICATION/ETC., FASTING, VIRTUE/VICE/MORAL/CODE/RULE-SET/WORTH/VALUE/ETC., PRINCIPLE, ETHIC, STANDARD, GUIDELINE, ASSAY/ASSEMBLY/ETC., VARIABLE/SET/VALUE/LIST/EXECUTION/ETC., EXECUTION, CONVICTION, DEATH, LIFE, BIRTH, LIFECYCLE, REAL/UNREAL/SURREAL/DEREAL/NOT_REAL/ANTIREAL/ETC., ACTUAL, TRUTH, FALSEHOOD, GENERAL/SPECIFIC, BOOLEAN ALGEBRA/LOGIC (TRUE FALSE), IMAGINATION/EFFORT, FRAMEWORK/PERSPECTIVE/POV/BASERAME/BASELINE/BASE/FOUNDATION/CONSTITUTION/CONSTITUENT/COMPONENT/ETC., PART/WHOLE,  FANTASY/BELIEF/DREAM/INTERACTIVE, DOMAIN/SUBDOMAIN, TOPIC/SUBJECT, OBJECTIVE/SUBJECTIVE, NONSENSE, SENSE/SENSIBLE, ETIQUETTE, HEURISTICS/BIAS/DISTORTION/FALLACY/UNSOLVED-PROBLEM/PARADOX/INCONGRUITY/UNKNOWN/DEFENSE_MECHANISM/ETC., ESTIMATION/APPROXIMATION/GAUGE/GUESS/CONJECTURE/HYPOTHESIS/HEURISTICS/ETC., APPEASEMENT/ACCOMMODATION/INFANTILIZATION/INTERNALIZATION/DEHUMANIZATION/DISSIPATION/DEREALIZATION/DEPERSONALIZATION/DEPERSONIFICATION/ETC., ATTAINMENT, REFORMATION, SUFERAGE, PROHIBITION, RESTRICTIONS, CLASSIFIED, EFFORT, SALVAGE, SALVATION, REPENTANCE, PRAYER, MODESTY, HUMILITY, INTEGRITY, REVERENCE, INCOMPLETE/UNFINISHED-WORKS/PSUEDOSCIENCE/MISINFORMATION/MISLEADING-CLAIMS/PREMATURE-JUDGEMENT/PRECONCEIVED-NOTION/PRIMING/LEADING-QUESTION/RHETORICAL-QUESTION/ETC., CEASEMENT/CESSATION/DESISTATION/DECOMISSION/DECEASEMENT/ETC., FICTION/NON-FICTION/FAN-FICTION/ETC., NO CATEGORY/NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED/ETC., COINCIDENTIAL UNSATISFIED CONDITION, TERM, SUFFICIENT NECESSARY DUE PROCESS OF LAW STANDARD OF EVIDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY WITNESS STANDARD (TAMPER/OBSTRUCTION/TESTIMONY-ERROR), IMPEDANCE/IMPINGEMENT/OBSTRUCTORY/DIFFERENTIAL/GRADIENTATION/DECEPTION/ETC., THOUGHT/IDEA/WORD/ACTION (CHOICES, FREEDOM OF WILL, INDEPENDENCE), DEPENDATION, RELATIONALIZATION, VOLITIONARY REVOLUTIONARY NOVELITY/ENEMY, CYCLIC ARGUMENT, DISTRIBUTION/DEVIATION/DANGER/DISORDRATION/RATIONAL/ETC., EUTHANASIA, LIABILITY/ACCOUNTABILITY/RESPONSIBILITY, MASSATION/IMBIBATION/GENERATION/DAMNATION/ETC., CORRUPTION/INFILTRATION/USURPATION/SUBVERSION/SUPERCISSION/ETC., EXCISSION CLAUSE/PASSAGE/EXCERPT, EXPLICIT/IMPLICIT, EXPLICATION/IMPLICATION, PROTOTYPE/MODEL/EXAMPLE/ETC., ILLUSTRATION/OUTLINE/ETC., SCHEMA/SCHEMATIC/SCHEME, CHAINING/CHUNKING/CASCADING/CATALYZING/ETC., CONGLOMERATION/AGGLOMERATION, TASK/ACTIVITY/NOTE, PRIVACY/DEPRIVITY/DEVOID/DEPRIVATION/ETC., RETREAT/REDACTION/REMISSION/RECONSIDERATION/ETC., LEVY/PLANE/LEVEL/FLOOR, BEAUTY/YOUTH/FERTILITY, ELIXIR OF LIFE/SIMS-GAME-MODEL, REMAINS/TRACES/ETC., CONDUCT/DECORUM, POSITION/ROLE, HONORS/ACHIEVEMENT/AWARD/RECOGNITION/FAME/ETC., REFLECTION/RECALL/RECOGNITION/ETC., DETECTION/IDENTIFICATION/ETC., SENSATION/PERCEPTION/COGNITION/MEDICAL/ANIMAL/HUMAN/MIND-UNC/ETC., HUMAN, OVEREXTENSION/CAPACITY/CAPABILITY/ABILITY/ETC., RANGE/SPECTRUM/DIFFERENTIAL/EXPANSOR/AMPLIFICATION/SIZE/SCALE/SOUND/SIGHT/ETC., UNIVERSE/NEUTRON/SUBATOMY/PHOTON/PHONON/DARK_MATTER/MIRROR/ETC., BLACK HOLE/VORTEX_SHEET/CONDENSED_PARTICLE_CORE, LEAD/HARD REFLECTIVE NEUTRON MIRRORS, BEAUTY MAKING MIRRORS, SITTER CHAMBERS, LEAD CASTLES, SIX LEAD SQUARE, BRICK SQUARE BRICK BUILDER(AZTEC LAYING, DADDY LAYING), MISTER PERTYS BRICK SQUARE, IMAGE/REPUTATION/ACCORD/CONCORD/CONDORDANT/CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATION/COLLABORATION/LEARNING/SOCIAL LEARNING/CORRELATION/CAUSATION/ILLUSORY CORRELATION/NO RELATION/NO CORRELATION/ETC., NO, PHOSPHOROUS, PYROPHOSPHOROUS, PHOSPHOR, PHOSTON, PHOSGENE, PHOSPHINE, PHOS, RESIN/GLUE/WAX/TAR/COAL/ETC., ADHESIVE/COHESIVE/ETC., FIRE, GLUEY FIRES, WHITE FLASH BOMB, WHITE FIRE, INVISIBLE PERSON, MAGNETOGENETICS, MAGNETICISM, ELECTRONICS, ARSENIC, LEAD, PHOSPHOR, SALT DESSICANT, WATER/HEAVY, RADIOACTIVATION, LIGHT WATER/AIRS/HYDROGS/HYDROGEN, ACID NUCLEAR, ACIDS, COOLANT, SMOG, PRESSURE/SHEAR/FORCE, IODINE, SILVER, MERCURY, ALUMINUM/CARBON/TITANIUM/GOLD/IRON/OXYGEN/NITROGEN/HELIUM/XENON/MAGPOTASH/ETC., FLUORINE, NEON, ALUM/BAKING POWDER/POTASH, ALUMINUM, POTASH, URANIUM/SUFLUR, LEGEND OF DACTA DIOBEATLES, BOY SCIENTIST NOBLE MAN WAR HERO AND LORD, SORCERS STONE JOKE, HARRY POUDRE JOKE, ETC..

DRAFT

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

NOTE. SOME ISSUES WITH TITLING CLASSIFYING A FEW OF THESE LAST POSTS, THEY HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE VARIOUS MOTIFS OR THEMES (SMALL, LIGHT, BRIEF APPRECIATION ATTEMPT, ETC.). TRYING NOT TO OBSTRUCT NO CATEGORY, NO TITLE, TITLE, DRAFT, UNKNOWN, UNCERTAIN, NOT AVAILABLE, N/A, BLANK,   , ETC., INCLUDING ATTEMPTING TO TRY/EFFORT AND TO AVOID NEGLIGENT/CARELESS CLASSIFICATION OF DOMAINS SHIFT/ASKEW/FRINGE/PERIPHERY/BIAS/ASIDE/DRIFT/ETC. (TRYING TO NOT MISUSE SHIFT/ASKEW/ETC. AND OTHER IMPORTANT IDENTIFIER, CLASSIFIER, CATEGORIZER, INDICATOR, TAG, ETC., TYPE WORDS, ALLUSIONS, ETC.). I HAD TO NAME SOME OF THEM POSTS POEMS, SOME ARE ACTUALLY (KIND OF) [MAYBE NOT MAYBE DEPENDS UNCERTAIN POSSIBILITY ALTHOUGH HOWEVER ETC.] POEMS. DRAFT

NOTE. THIS LAST SECTION/EXCERPT/ETC. IS IN REQUISITION TO REWRISSION FOR PURPOSE TO CLARIFY OR ANSWER HIGHER ORDER QUESTIONS ON THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PASSAGE. INCLUDING IN ADVANCE OF OCCASION TO CONSIDER EXTENDED APPLICATIONS, PRINCIPLE AND STRUCTURE ORGANIZATION OF ITEMS, CATALOGATION OF LIST OF CODES/UNITS, ETC.. FUNCTIONALIZATION FROM STRUCTURE MINUTES TASKING IDEATION OF CIVILIAN GENERAL POPULACE, ETC.. ADVANCED CONCEPTS LIKE REWRISSION, ORDERARY, ORDRATION, RATIONS, ETC., IS NOT FOR CIVILIAN DOMAIN OR SUBJECT ; INCLUDING CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE GENERAL POPULACE AND ENCUMBENTS (SLAVES ENSLAVED ETC., EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS MAY EXIST ; CONCEPT OF EXIST ; ETC.). DRAFT

DRAFT

 

03-31-2023-0442 - DRAFT

USA NAC DOM

COMPLICATIONS WITH FRAME AND CRIME [DRAFT]

FIRST MAN MENTION OR MOVE

SECOND MAN MOVE WITHOUT PERMISSION

THIRD MAN MOVE BY HEARSAY AND WITHOUT PERMISSION 

COMPLICATION IS FIRST MAN FRAMED, HIGHER ORDER FRAMED, ALL THREE MEN FRAMED, TWO MEN FRAMED ONE ESCAPES, CRIME, EXPANSION AMPLIFICATION CYCLE SEQUENCE CASCADE, DISSEMINATION OF MOTIF/MODUS/METHOD-OF-OPERATION/PROMINENCE-EVIDENCED-INDICATED-IMPLIED-ETC./ETC., NO PROOF NO EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL COINCIDENCE POSSIBILITY, DIRECTION DISTANCE SEPARATION, INFILTRATIONS/BRAINTRANSPLANT/IMPLANT/BRAINMODIFICATION/BRAINPIECING/SECOND-PROCESSING-UNIT/SIGNAL-RECEIVER-FUNCTION-STANDARD/ETC. (NO MEDICAL, NO EXAMS, NO SURGERY TO BRAIN, NO BRAIN TRANSPLANT, NO EXACERBATION/AGGRAVATION OF CIRCUMSTANCE, NO DEMENTIATION (E.G. BY TECH, RESOURCE, MEN, BY PHARM, NO PROGENY, NO MATE, ETC.), ETC.), LIMITATION BOUNDS STATUTE, RELEASE, ETC.. [DRAFT]  

NOTE. {NO RETAINER CATEGORY, TIME CONSTRAINT, RESOURCE LIMITATION, NO RECORD, ETC.} DRAFT

VARIANTS.  SECOND MAN MOVE WITH COINCIDENT SCRIPT, THIRD MAN MOVE WITHOUT PERMISSION, THIRD MAN MOVE WITHOUT CONTACT/INFORMATION, THIRD MAN MOVE, SECOND MAN MOVE BY HEARSAY AND THIRD, ETC.. DRAFT

NOTE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NEVER AGAIN PERMITTED TO POSITION A HOSTAGE IN THE MIDDLE OF INFILTRATION OPERATIONS, AS A RECEIVER, REPOSITORY, ALIBI, CRIMINAL, PSYCHOPATHOLOGY COVER, FALSE MOTIVE CLAIM, NON-INVOLVEMENT APPEAL, IMPLICATION BY SURFACE/DIDACTIC-ARMY/CHURCH-BELIEF/KNOW-LOGIC/HEURISTICS/WITNESSIDERROR/TAMPER/OBSTRUCTION/FALSE-SCHOLARISMS/IMPERSONATION/EXHALTATION-OF-THEFT-DECEPTION-BY-SYSTEMATIZATION-TIME-NORMALIZATION-MOTIVE-STATEMENT-STANDARDIZATION-GOAL-OBJECTIVE-PURPOSE-IDEALIZATION/ETC., ETC.. THE HOSTAGES ARE ALMOST NEVER RECOVERED OR FOUND. THE INFILTRATION UNITS RESEMBLE OR REFLECT TEST UNITS BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH UNKNOWN DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURE TERM ETC.. DRAFT

NOTE. FALSE MOTIVE. NO MOTIVATION NO MOTIVE. INFILTRATION OR INDOCTRINATION. POSSIBLY STOLEN SHELL, BRAIN, PARTS, ETC.. IMPLANT, SIGNAL RECEPTION FUNCTION, CUSTOM CELL REGENERABLE (METABOLITE VARIANCE, BIOCHEMICAL ABNORMALITY OR PROFILE MODIFICATION, INCLUDING DRUG COVERS AND HIGH COVERS), HYBRIDIZATION (COVERS, PROFILE MODIFICATION), UNKNOWING OF AGENT HYBRIDIZER (ACTION OR EFFECT OR APPEARANCE WITHOUT APPARENT CAUSE), STOLEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POSSIBLE (SUSPICION), RUNNERS/PORTIERS/PORTERS/CARRIERS/ARMED/CLANDESTINE-OPERATIONS/SECRECY/DISINFORMATION/FALSEHOODS/LIE/ETC., ETC.. THE MOTIVE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMINALS, CLASSIFICATION OF HUMANS, CLASSIFICATION OF ORIGIN, ETC.. THE CRIME MOTIVE SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH INTEGRITY. SPACETIME, BACKGROUND, PREMEDITATION, TRADITIONARY, RESOURCE/MEN, HEROISM/LAST, ETC. (SHORT TIME NO RECOURSE BACKGROUND WEIGHT MATCH WEIGHT SCALE KNOW TRAINED-END TRADITIONAL-FOREIGN-SSF WHITE-NO-RACE-BRED MERGERY-MEN-IMPERSONATION RESOURCE-ELSE HEROISM-DEATH). PROPER CLASSIFICATION IS RELEVANT. MANY ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY AS PARTICIPANTS (HEATHENRY SAVAGERY SCAVENGERS ETC.). NO ONE PREDICTS (MAGIC), NO PREDICTION CAUSE, ETC. ; AGGRAVATION OF CIRCUMSTANCE IS INAPPROPRIATE IN GENERAL. EACH CONTRIBUTION MATTERS IN WAR. IN A WAR OF UNCERTAINTY, DRUG LORDS SHOULD NEVER STAY AND ALL THEIRS DAMNED ANYWAY. THE LAST ONE THE LAST TIME THE LAST MAN, WOMANKIND. DRAFT

NOTE. THE JOKE IS THAT WOMEN LIKE MEN, AND MEN THAT ARE NOT ONE TIME MAN. A MAN BECOMES LIKE WOMEN, AND HIS CRIMES BECOME LIKE KNIVES INSTEAD OF RUINS. A MAN AND BIG FIRE, A WOMAN AND BIG SQUIRE. THE LAST, ONE. THE LAST, TIME. TIME THE LAST, ONE THE LAST, MAN THE LAST. DRAFT

NOTE. PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF CRIME IS IMPORTANT. DISTANCE, RESOURCE, MEN, KILLS/DEATHS/VERIFIED/CREMATION (NEVER RETURN AGAIN), COUNTS, ACCOUNT, IDENTITY, BACKGROUND, CONGRUITIES JUST/JUSTIFICATION BIAS, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS, POSSIBILITY, CIRCUMSTANTIAL/CIRCUMSCRIPTION, WEIGHTS MEASURES, SCALE, EQUITY, LESSON/BOOK/LIBRARY, SLEEP/CLEAN/SMOKE, TWO MEN DOWN OR ONE MAN DEAD, INTERROGATION/INDOCTRINATION/DRUGS/STOLEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TECHNOLOGY PHARMACY NO EVIDENCE DESCRIPTIONS INFORMATION ESPIONAGE RISK/ETC., PRISON OF WAR TRADES, MISSING PERSONS, MISSING IN ACTION, UNKNOWN, COMPROMISE POSED TO THE UNKNOWN BY AMERICA/ETC., CRITICALITY, ETC.. WITHIN COMPETENCE TO KILL AND NO JUDGEMENT IS SUPERIOR, TO INCOMPETENT KILL TORTURE SLAUGHTER-OF-WORD DURATION-EXTENSORY TWIST-SCHEME-PLOT-AMBUSH-BTR ARREST-WITHOUT-WARRANT-VIOLATION-PLANNED-PREMEDITATION-INFARCTION-MAJORITY-SIDES-DIVIDE-WORD-MEANING-DISORDER-DEMENTIA-COMMUNICATION-SPEECH-WIRETAP-COMPUTER-PSYCHOACOUSTICS-PSYCHOLOGY-APPEARANCES-VIOLENCE-HARM-TORTURE-EXTENDED-LIFE-IMAGING-DEFORMATION-IMAGE-DEFORMED-DISSEMINATION-DISEASIFICATION-GRADE_REDUCTION_SHELL-REPLACEMENTATION-AND-BESEIGE-COMPETENT-IMPLANT-CONCEALMENT-DECEPTION-DECEIT-DECEIVER-DISPLACEMENT-TO-VICTIM-FEAR_OF_DEATH-WARS-INJURIES-AMPLIFICATION-ACCUMULATION-RISK-NUMBERS-WORLD-TECHNOLOGY-WIRELESS-NETWORK-COMPUTER-TELEPHONE-TELEVISION-CONSTANT-BUILDING-ETC., ETC.. PRISON BUY OUT. DRAFT

NOTE. CONTEXT. SEPARATE. RELEASE. [ANSWERS, KEYWORDS, WEIGHTS.] DRAFT

DRAFT

 

03-31-2023-0359 - KEEPING POEM DRAFT (USA NAC DOM)

[USA NAC DOM]

 

KEEPING OF ITEMS

KEEPING OF SLAVES

KEEPING OF WIFE

KEEPING OF WIVES

KEEPING OF BODIES

KEEPING OF MAN

KEEPING OF MEN

KEEPING OF RESOURCE

KEEPING OF PLANTS

KEEPING OF ANIMALS

KEEPING OF MATERIALS

KEEPING OF EMBRYOS

KEEPING OF ROCKS

KEEPING OF ASSASINS

KEEPING OF GUARDS

KEEPING OF POSITION

KEEPING OF KILLERS

KEEPING OF BOMBERS

KEEPING OF WORKERS

KEEPING OF SURGEONS

KEEPING OF REBUILD SURGEON

KEEPING OF BUILDER

KEEPING OF BUILDS

KEEPING OF MINES

KEEPING OF STRUCTURE

KEEPING OF STRUCTURES

KEEPING OF FUNCTION

KEEPING OF FUNCTIONS

KEEPING OF OPERATIONS

KEEPING OF CALCULATIONS, MEASURES, CALIBRATIONS, SCALES, WEIGHTS, OPERATIONS, ETC..

KEEPING OF POWERS

KEEPING OF LIFE

KEEPING OF BIRTH

KEEPING OF DEATH

KEEPING OF GENERATION, REGENERATION, AUTOGENERATION, AUTOREGENERATION, REPLICATION, CLONING, ETC..

KEEPING OF OTHER CATEGORIES, WORDS, ETC..

KEEPING OF CLASS, CLASSIFICATION, SYSTEM, SURROUNDS, ETC..

KEEPING OF TAXONOMY

KEEPING OF ENVIRONMENT

KEEPING OF EARTH

KEEPING OF UNIVERSE

KEEPING OF PARTICLES

KEEPING OF DUSTS

KEEPING OF MIRRORS

KEEPING OF GRIDS

KEEPING OF GLITTERS

KEEPING OF BLACK

KEEPING OF WHITE

KEEPING OF GREY

KEEPING OF SMOKE

KEEPING OF SALT

KEEPING OF OCEANS

KEEPING OF FORESTS

KEEPING OF FIRES

KEEPING OF NUCLEAR POWER

KEEPING OF SPACE

KEEPING OF TIME

KEEPING OF LINE

DRAFT

{PROSE, POETRY}

[DRAFT]

03-31-2023-0145 - DRAFT

USA NAC DOM

DRAFT (NOTES) [grief of the general populace of usa nac dom earth]

THE ISSUE AT CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE GENERAL POPULACE OF HIGHEST (IMMINENT ONGOING) PRECEDENCE (AND FOR A CRITICAL GROUP) (NO BABY, NO PROGENY YET, NO CHILDREN EVER, NEVER HAD A CHILD, ETC. ; E.G. CHILDREN, YOUTHS, INNOCENT, LONG WAIT/CAREER, ETC..) IS PROCREATION AND PROGENY, SEMI-PROGENY, BABY, ETC.. NO TRAFFICKING SLAVERY PEONAGE. NO VIOLENCE HARM TORTURE. {NO BOY TO GIRL OR GIRL TO BOY, CONSIDERATION REMEDIATION RESTITUTION USAF MANAGEMENT, REBODIMENT/STORAGE SHELL, EUTHANASIA CONSIDERATIONS, ETC.} DRAFT

THE ISSUE AT CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE GENERAL POPULACE OF HIGH PRECEDENCE IS MEN, AND MATE ARRANGEMENT [MALE FEMALE PAIR, COUPLE]. THE ISSUE EXTENDS TO PROPERLY IMAGED MEN WITHOUT EARNED POSITION REQUIREMENT TO PROPOSE FOR DATE/MATE/PROCREATE/PROGENY OR LONG TERM MATE ARRANGEMENT (E.G. MARRIAGE). THE NEED FOR MEN WITH BEAUTY SURGERY PROPER HEIGHT AESTHETIC INTELLIGENCE AMENSIA-QUOTIENT DISPOSITION LONGEVITY SUBSTITUTABILITY-IMPLANT-STANDARD SLIM-FRAME (RESPECT OR STATICITY OR STABILITY OR STAYS OR ETC.), ETC., IS EVIDENT. THE SUSTAINER REQUIREMENT IS NOT WITHIN CAPACITY OF SELFISH OR AMERICAN ENDEAVORS. TO ASSIST IN REMEDIATION (CIVILIANS AND CIVILIAN GENERAL POPULACE CL1=L5) SURGERY [BEAUTY, RECONSTRUCTIVE, REBUILD, ETC.] SHOULD BE MADE READILY AVAILABLE TO MEN TO RECONSTRUCT BASEFRAME, REDUCE TORSO, REMOVE MUSCLE LIMBS/NECK/BACK/ETC., LENGTHEN THE NECK/LIMBS, REPAIR SKULL/JAW, ETC. (E.G. PHYSICIANS, LICENSING, COOPERATION BY MEN, COMPLIANCE, REGULATION, ENFORCEMENT, ETC.). BUILD MEN AND IMPLANT IS OF HIGH INTEREST TO THE GENERAL POPULACE, INCLUDING MULTI-WOMEN CONSIGNMENT TO MAN FOR ADDRESSMENT (EUTHANASIA OR MATE/PROGENY, AFTER MEET/DATE/ETC.) [E.G. GROUPS/COLONIES/ETC. WHERE A MAN MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE WOMAN FOR A WIFE, HIS WIFE, ETC., AND WHERE A MAN MAY HAVE WIVES, MULTIPLE, WIVES, ETC.]. {ALL AGES OF WOMEN REQUIRE PROPER IMAGED MAN, AND MANY WOMEN REMAIN UNSETTLED, UNMARRIED, UNADDRESSED.} (TO THE RELEVANT COMPONENTS, QUOTE RR NSTP NC NV NR TSA NSTP NC NV NR NR NSTP NC NV NR). BEAUTY, RECONSTRUCTIVE, REBUILD, ETC., SURGERY FOR MEN IS PARAMOUNT. INCLUDING BASEFRAME CORRECTION, BASELINE BIOCHEMISTRY RECTIFICATION. REMEDIATION RESTITUTION FOR CIRCUMSTANCE/ETC.. BEAUTY YOUTH FERTILITY CONSIDERATION, AESTHETIC PRINCIPLE LONGEVITY VERY LONG LIFE LONG TIME GOOD RELATIONS ETC.. DRAFT

THE ISSUE AT CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE GENERAL POPULACE OF MODERATE PRECEDENCE IS RECONSTRUCTIVE, BEAUTY OR OTHER SURGERY FOR WOMEN [YOUTH DOMAIN [AESTHETIC], BEAUTY CONSIDERATION [NO WRINKLE BEAUTY ANY AGE, ROUTINE/TISSUE/ETC.] ; IMAGE V IDENTITY ; EX PHILOSOPHY REFERENCES IN SCIENCE/MEDICAL ON AMERICAN APPRECIATION OF YOUTH DECONTAMINATION/STERILIZATION FREQUENCY-PROCEDURES-ETC., FOR TISSUE REFINERY CALIBRATION MEASURE, REDUCTION/THINNING/TIGHTENING-REFINEMENT-MATRIX_COHERENCE-RESTRITION/ETC., ETC..] (BEAUTY AND YOUTH ; BEAUTY YOUTH FERTILITY) ; INCLUDING OPERATION TO PROVIDE A PROPER OR ESSENTIAL COMPONENT [PART ADDITION TO WHOLE, WHOLE PART, ETC.] OR REMOVE ORGANS (STORAGE AND NO PART, RESECTIONS, ETC.) [E.G. LIVER] OR TO ADDRESS MISSING/ETC. ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS AND NECESSARY OR OPTIONAL PROVISIONS [MISSING QUARTER HEART, AND REPLACEMENT QUARTER HEART ETC.]. SIMPLY RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, BEAUTY SURGERY, REBUILD SURGERY, ARTIFICIAL ORGANS, REPRODUCTIVE ORGAN SYSTEM COMPONENT THIRD OF FOURTH (REPLACEABLE), OPTIONAL STORAGE FOR SHELL/ORGANS (DEPENDS), USAF SUPPORT OF PHYSICIANS/CIVILIAN GENERAL POPULACE/HEALTH CARE/ETC., ETC.. DOES NOT PERMIT INVOLUNTARY, ETC. ; ISSUE CAN BE MANAGED {PRELIMINARY ADDRESSMENT ; FINAL ADDRESSMENT SHOULD BE FORMAL AND INCLUDE REBODIMENT OPTION OR BUILD SHELL OPTION TO ACCOMMODATE OR SUFFICE FOR FACILITATION OF REBODIMENT PROCEDURE AND VESSLE/CONTAINER/ETC. AVAILABILITY, ETC..} BY EQUIPMENT PROCEDURES TOOLS MATERIALS ETC. TO PERFORM SURGERY AT HOME [INC. STORAGE SHELL, ORGANS, EMBRYOS, ETC.] AND PERMITTANCE OF REQUESTATION OF ASSISTANCE FOR FULL BODY/DOUBLE CONNECT AND COMPUTER SYSTEM GUIDE (IF RESTRICTED)/TWO-MAN-JOB/BACK/EYE/SPINE/SHUT-OFF-IMPLANT-CARES/ACCIDENTS/EMERGENCIES/INCIDENTS/MINOR-ISSUE/ETC., ETC.. DRAFT

THE ISSUE AT CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE GENERAL POPULACE OF MILD PRECEDENCE INCLUDES STANDARD OF LIVING, QUALITY OF LIFE, LIFESTYLE, IMAGING CONSIDERATIONS, REPUTATION SECURITY (GOVERNMENT SUBDOMAIN), POLICIES (HOUSE ARREST, RESTRAINING ORDERS ; SOCIAL DISTANCING/STAY AT HOME ORDER), RESOURCE LONG TERM BALANCE, DOMESTIC AFFAIRS, CALL TO RETURN (USAF RESIGNATION FROM FOREIGN WARS, ESP CIVILIAN PARTICIPATION IN FOREIGN AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS), ARRAIGNMENT OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,

THE ISSUE

DRAFT

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

AFTER GREAT APPRECIATION IT IS APPARENT THE NEED OF THE CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE GENERAL POPULACE THAT IS CONTEXTED BY DOMINION OF MAN. DRAFT

THERE EXISTS (CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE LEVEL FIVE) A CIRCUMSTANCE OF INTEREST TO CIVILIANS AT THE CIVILIAN GENERAL POPULACE, AND WHERE EARNED POSITION IS APPROACHED BY CIVILIANS AND IN MANNER INAPPROPRIATE. DRAFT

THE CIVILIANS OF THE GENERAL POPULACE ARE SEEKING PROPER IMAGED MEN WITHOUT EARNED POSITION, AND TO SUPPORT OR SUSTAIN OR ENABLE THEIR HAPPINESS LONG TERM, WITHOUT COMPROMISE TO EXISTING OR PREEXISTING STRUCTURE. DRAFT

THE STATUS OF CONSIDERATION CONCERNS A COMMON INTEREST AND ENSUANT EFFORT BY CIVILIANS OF THE GENERAL POPULACE TO REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING AND OF SOCIETY. DRAFT

CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE LEVEL FIVE CIVILIANS HUMANS CAUCASIANS ETC., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NORTH AMERICA CONTINENT WEST DOMESTIC EARTH PLANET JULIAN GRIGORIAN REIGN (CALENDAR) [CE] ; CHURCH RECORDER (CHRISTIAN, HOLY BIBLE DOCTRINE) ; CLOCK (UNK, WATER CLOCK, CANDLE FLAME, HOUR GLASS SAND, CIRCADIAN, TIMERS/MECHANICAL, ETC.) [E.G. AS, RUS, MEST, EUR, AF, ETC.], GENERAL POPULACE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTAL OR POLITICAL OR SOCIAL VARIETY NON-TRADITIONAL, TRADITIONAL SECTS/GROUPS/ETC., WOOD SALT MECHANICS BRICK WILD-ANIMALS THREAD-TREES/SECOND-HAND/MISSING-PLANTS/ETC. (VAR REALITY ACC TO DOC RET) LARD-BINS/SAP/RESIN/BIOFILM/ROCKS/MOSS/GRASS/LEAVES FIRE PIT (SALT PRESSURE EXPLOSIVE ROCK POWDER METAL-CAT-FLINT CONTAINED-CASCADE ROPE-WIRE-STICK PLATING/DEPOSITION IGNITION GAS AIRS ACID/ALCOHOL/FERMENT/SHOCK (VORTEX SALT, WEIGHT RESPONDER, SCALES, DUST, ETC.) [IMAGING AND RECORDING CHIP AND BRAIN CHIP-PROJECTION INTERACTIVE CHIP (PROJECTOR CHIP, PROJECTOR RETURN SIGNAL TRANSCEPTION TRANSMISSORY INTERACTION RESPONSE RECEIVER ETC.){CHIP THAT COULD PROJECT AND PROJECTED IMAGES OR SPACE/ETC. WAS INTERACTIVE OR BRAIN-INTERFACED WITH IMPRESSIVE CLAIMS RESULTING FROM USERS AND NO LAW/INSTRUCTION/RULE/ETC. AND RISK/DANGER/THEFT/ETC.} ; NO CAPACITY TO RESTORE DEPLETED STOCK OR INFINITE SUPPLY OR POWER BUILD TO TEST OR DIE FOR CHIPS SURVIVAL, ETC..], [SCAVENGERS, HUNTER GATHERERS, CHASERS AND CHANCERS, DREAMERS AND BEAMERS, FERAL, STERILE, COMPROMISE, COOPERATION, CONTRACT, MAGIC POWERS, SAVAGES, HEATHENS, AGGLOMERATES, JESUS, NEANDER, HOARD, MOB, VAGRANT, MEANDERER, GYPSY/JEW, INFERIOR GENETICS/GENETIC DISEASE, LOW EQUITY, NO SYMPATHY/ASSISTANCE, STORM THE SCIENTIST CASTLE RAID, PIRATES, PLANS, GRAND ESCAPADE, BLIMP TO AMERICA/AMP SHIP TO AMERICA, LEFT BEHIND, ETC.. {WARM TRAFFICKING, PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, CRIMINALITY, INCRIMINATION, DISSEMINATION, JUSTIFICATION RATIONALIZATION OF PURPOSE/POSITION/SELF/ASSIGNMENT/WAYS/CRIME/ETC., HEALTH MANIPULATION COMMUNICATIONS OVERRIDE/CORRUPTION/MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION/MALIGNMENT/FAILURE/ETC., SYSTEM FAILURE, FLAWED FOUNDATIONS, GREED/JELOUSY (JEALOUSY) WITH ACTION, USE OF HOSTAGES FOR SECOND ACTION OR THIRD ACTION IS A CONCERN (ONGOING, INTERNATIONAL), NO MOTIVATION INDOCTRINATION (FARCE, DECEPTION STRUCTURES POOR SKILL), POVERTY/PEASANTRY/HOMELESSNESS/TRADITION/ETC., DISEASED, DEFORMED, DERANGED, GROUPS, DIW/AMNESTIC DRUG/BRAIN TRANSPLANT (TECH PHARM ADV, ASIDE), THEFT AND DEPART WITH CEASE AND DESIST IDEATION RETURNATION, ATTEMPT TO HOSTAGATION OF THE SCIENTIST/ETC., PERPETUATION OF HOSTAGATION OF FOREIGN/SCIENTIST/ETC. SCHEME (MANY SCIENTISTS ETC., VARYING BACKGROUNDS LEVELS POWER SKILLS BALANCE POINTS), ATTEMPT TO TOPPLE THE HOSTAGE SCIENTISTS BALANCE POINT APPRECIATION/DISTANCE/SUSTAINMENT/ETC., USE OF HOSTAGES AND DRUGGED PERSONS FOR DECEPTION AND ACCIDENT (FRAMING HOSTAGES ON BOTH SIDES AS CAUSE FOR ACCIDENT PLANNED IN ADVANCED BY FACILITATORS/AMCANS/AMERICANS/THEIVES/STOLENIP/ENCUMBENTS/ETC., DISPLACEMENT TO HOSTAGE ENCUMBENTS, OR SITUATIONAL ENCUMBENTS OR ENCUMBANT (TERM), OR ENCUMBENT, ETC.), USE OF DRUGGED PERSONS TO SKIP RELEVANT CONTENT DECEPTION TO IRRELEVANCY REASSIGNMENT/ABUSE OF HOSTAGES TO FORCE IRRELEVANT CONTENT ATTENDANCE/ETC. OR WRONG TIME/PLACE/PERSONS SCENARIO AND THREATEN RECORD, HOSTAGE AUDIENCE OF GOOD PEOPLE AND BAD PEOPLE STAGING/SCENING/DEMONSTRATING/DISPLAYING/PRESENTING/EXHIBITING/EXPLOITING/EXPOSING/EXPOSITORYING/ETC. (ON DRUGS IMPLANT NO WARNING ; HERE TODAY GONE TOMORROW ; OK SOME CASES, NOT OK AMERICAN CIVILIAN GENERAL POPULACE CAUCASIANS WITH HAPPINESS OR BENEFIT LONG TERM BY PREVALENCE SUSTENANCE POSITIONATION STRUCTURE DOMINANCE, WITH DEPENDENT OR INDEPENDITIZED WORLD IMAGE, OR DEPENDATION AND COOPERATIVE, DEPENDATION CLAIMS (MISLEADING), COOPERATIVE UNUAL AND HOSTAGES, ETC..), OVERPOPULATION, MASS SELF PROCREATION, MASS TRAFFICKING, MASS MIGRATION, EVERYONE FAMILY ASSUMPTION, CL1 LIGHT CLOAK LIMITATION EXPANSION IDEA (IDEOLOGIES PHILOSOPHIES RUSSIAN VAR PHILOSOPHY), THEFT, THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, CONSPIRACY (VIV XLIF, ORIGINAL DESIGN FAMILY, ETC.), CL1 LIGHT CLOAK RECEPTION (NO COST), INCONGRUITIES THAT WOULD RENDER PARALYZED MIND/CONTAINED/RESTRICTED/CONDEMNED/DAMNED/TORTURE, CLONE RECEPTION (NO COST), BLANK RECEPTION (NO COST), FECULAR HUMAN VARIETY TYPES, DEMAGNATIZED ORGANISMS CONTAINER, MAMMALS, NESTED SYSTEM BUILT [BY INFERIOR LIFEFORM, CAPACITY LIMITATIONS ; DR BETTEY DVM PORTAL THROUGH SPACE AND FILLED THE SPACE TO APPEAR IN FORM AT EARTH, SPACE MIRROR SHAPE MESSAGE] OR GENERATED BY WASTE (OR NAR PLANET EXPLOSION TERM, WAR TEST), ETC.}], ETC..

DRAFT

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

HIERARCHY, RANK, CONTROL (DEFINITIONS; STANDARD PROPER BOY MAN ETC.), ERASURES, EUTHANASIAS, MANAGEMENT, SURGERIES, RECTIFICATION, REMEDIATION, RESTITUTION, ETC., ETC. (MALE AUTHORITY, MAN AUTHORITY, ETC. ; RACE/GROUPS/ETC. SEGREGATION PRINCIPLE [SOCIAL] ; ISOLATION GENERAL [INDIVIDUAL] ; STRUCTURE DEFENSE [MAN/MEN/ETC. UNWANTED APPROACH, ATTENTION, APPEARANCE, DECEPTION, ETC. ; MEN OR MAN SUBJUGATED OR WRONG RANK AND APPROACH FOR WRONG CAUSE/ETC., RESOLUTION/IMPOSE/ETC., ETC..], ETC.). PRIVACY OF MEN IS PARAMOUNT, DISTANCE COMMUNICATION CORRESPONDANT PROPER ONLY (E.G. SOCIAL NETWORKING, BUSINESS CARD, PHONE BOOK, PROGRAMMED NUMBER, MAIL, ETC.) ; MEN SHOULD REMAIN DISTANT AT ALL TIMES EXCEPTIONS ARE FAR AND FEW (MEN SHOULD GENERALLY NOT APPROACH MEN, WOMEN SHOULD NEVER APPROACH MEN.) [MEN SHOULD NOT ASSAULT TO HARASS MEN, WOMEN SHOULD NOT ASSAULT MEN, WOMEN SHOULD NOT APPROACH MEN OR WOMEN, INCLUDING MAN OR WOMAN OR ETC.] {CHILD SHOULD NEVER BE APPROACHED, INCLUDING IT, SPECIAL CLASS, ETC., AND ENCUMBENT DOMAINS.}. DRAFT

NOTE. IT IS OK ACTUALLY TO LEAVE MEN AND WOMEN ALONE. WOMEN SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE AND HUMANE, HONESTY MATTERS (NO SIDE SECTION ACTIVITY/PROCESS/SCHEME/ETC.). CIRCUMSTANCE IS TRYING, EXHAUSTING, WASTEFUL, IRREMEDIABLE, UNRESOLVED, ENDURING, OCCUPYING, ETC.. HARDSHIP HAPPENS. RESOLUTION SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WITHOUT STRINGS, AMBIGUITY, DECEPTION/SECRECY, CRIME, PERPETUATION, ACTION/WORD, ETC.. HUMANE, MERCY, CLEMENCY, FORBEARANCE, PATIENCE, HUMILITY, REVERENCE, FORGIVENESS, ETC.. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DELVE INTO THE BUSINESS/ACTIVITY/LIFE/BEING/BODY/EXISTENCE/ETC. OF ANOTHER PERSON, PLACE, THING, IDEA, ETC., PARTICULARLY MEN, EMBRYOS/ETC., THEIR FAMILIES, CHILDREN, YOUTH, ANIMALS, PLANTS, EQUITY, AUTHORITY, HONORABLES, PRIVACY, ETC.. THE LIMIT IS ABDUCTIONS, DREAMS, CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE REAL LIFE, REAL PEOPLE, ARMED FORCES, UNKNOWN, UNCERTAIN, UNLOCABLES, SPECIAL SPECIES, FOREIGN BEINGS, OUTERSPACE ALIENS, ETC.. DRAFT

DRAFT

 

03-31-2023-0104 - DRAFT [MED VAR DRAFTING CONCEPT]

USA NAC DOM

 

DOMAIN 1 {AMERICAN MEDICAL

{EXECUTIVE BRANCH [CONCEPT MERGER PRESIDENTIATION DEMOCRACY PEOPLE AND FEDERAL TAKEOVER USA NAC DOM] FEDERAL GOVERNMENT [WORD/CONCEPT ; DIFFERENT FROM USA NAC DOM] CONSTITUTION CASSEDY-RUSSIA-HYBRIDS-MASSGENS-TROOPS-BODIES-MASSPROD-MASSSELFPRO-ETC.  [CIVILIAN/STANDARD/AMATEUR/EMERG-RESP-WORLD-CIVS-RACE-MIGRAT-THEFT-ETC./ETC. BRED MAS VARIETY] FOUNDING FATHERS AMERICAN HISTORY IMMIGRATION PRESEDENTIATION VOTERS HISTORICAL FIGURES FAMILIES ETC., ETC.}

UNITED STATES POLITICAL, [SOCIAL, EDUCATIONARY, FAME, FIGURE], ETC. MEDICAL [PRIVATE]} 

[HOSTAGE OR MISSING MAN, THE MAN, BUILD MAN, ETC. [RF. THE WIFE, XLIF, VIV, ETC.] ; COVERS/ETC. (AMERICANS), HOSTAGE RETAINER/ASSAULT/INDOCTRINATION, COMPLEXIFICATION/PIECING/DRUGATION/IMPLANT/STOLEN-IP/ETC., ETC..] {SPECIAL CLASS MAN, DR F. NOT AMERICAN, NOT WITH THE PEOPLE OR FRAUD, NOT WITH THE PATIENT OR SUBJECT, ANYONE ANYTIME, ANY STORIES/FALSE RECORDS BY SECOND THIRD AND MISCONSTRUAL WITH ESCAPE PRACTICE BY AMERICANS AND ESCAPE IMPEDANCE TO AGENT, NO LANGUAGE/WORD/MEMORY/DISORDER/ETC., NOT HUMAN/CIVILIAN/AMERICAN/ETC., NO NEGOTIATION, KEY CODES, TRUTH WEIGHT, NOT MARTYR/AFFILIATE/REGISTREE/IMMIGRANT/USA/CAUCASIAN/RACES/RACE/CIVILIAN/ETC., HIGH RANK, OFFICER, MAGNETOGENETICS, COMPUTERS, BOMBS, BUILD MATE, IMPLANT, BUILDER REBUILD SURGEON BUILD, FITTED, CHASED/HUNTED/PURSUED/REMOVED/ETC., ASSAULT ATTACK INTEREST TO CIVILIANS IN CLOAK (BETTER MOTIVATION MORALE), WAR CRIMINAL, DON, FALSE PERSONATION AND IMPERSONATION BY CIVILIANS (E.G. SHELL SCHEME, IMPLANT BRAIN PIECE AND CLONE PIECE SCHEME, FLASH IMAGE SCHEME, FLASH BOMB 1900S/ETC. RECORD SCHEME, AMERICAN HOPE-DREAM-HUMANKIND-SURVIVAL, ETC.), WHITE NOR RACE, WHITE NO RACE, MAMA AND THE MINERS, BLACK FACED FIREFIGHTERS, NUCLEAR FIREFIGHTERS, SS, SSF, SPECIAL FORCES, BLACK BLACK, BLACK BLACK BLACK, DUSTY BLUE, GENERAL, BOMBER PLANES, PLANE BUILDER WOMAN, FIRE WOMAN, SECOND IN COMMAND, OLD SURGEON, OLD BUILDER, OLD ENGINEER, OLD VETERINARY, SKILL PRESENCE PROOF RETAINER NOT EXPECTED UNCERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCE COMPROMISED [PREPARATIONS OF HOSTAGE TAKERS AND EXPECTATION OF RETAINER], AGENT BLUE, DRUG LORDS, GOTH QUEEN, MISSING PERSONS, UNKNOWN, UNCERTAIN, NO RECORD, WORLD CLASS AGENTS, SPECIAL SPECIES, CONSTANTINE, AMOEBA, NAME THE WORM, GRIGORY M, GARGOYLE, GATEKEEPER, LEPERCHAUNATI, CREAM SWEATER BOY, DR BETTEY DVM, DACTA DIOBEATLES LEGEND, STEPHANIE ANTON DDS, STAMP, WOOD, PLANE, PAPER, ETC.}

 

DOMAIN 2 [THE SCIENTIST] {UNKNOWN, BECAME A FEMALE?}

{UNITED STATES SPECIAL MEDICAL

UNITED STATES FEDERAL MEDICAL

UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES MEDICAL}

 

DOMAIN 3 [THE WIFE] {BUILD ONLY, INC BRAIN ; HUMANIZATION ILLEGAL. INCLUDING INHUMANE, DISRESPECT, DISGUSTING (CIV ASSOC DEHUMN), ETC..}

{UNITED STATES CIVILIAN MEDICAL}

 

DRAFT

03-31-2023-0037 - DRAFT

USA NAC DOM

UNCERTAIN, UNKNOWN

CIVILIAN LEVEL ONE LEVEL FIVE CIVILIAN GENERAL POPULACE CAUCASIANS AMERICANS USA NAC DOM

BRAD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARMED FORCES USA NAC DOM (TERMED)

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

BIRTH TO DEATH IN SERVICE (UNDERGROUND)

ICLONE BRAD DOMAIN (UNDERGROUND)

UNKNOWN

[HONORS]

 

DRAFT

03-31-2023-0031 - PARTICLE (DRAFT) [GRAMMATICAL] [FUNCTION WORD] {RELATIONS, ASPECTS ; STRUCTURAL, ASPECTUAL, MODAL ; LINGUISTIC MODALITY} DRAFT

In grammar, the term particle (abbreviated PTCL) has a traditional meaning, as a part of speech that cannot be inflected, and a modern meaning, as a function word associated with another word or phrase, generally in order to impart meaning. Although a particle may have an intrinsic meaning, and indeed may fit into other grammatical categories, the fundamental idea of the particle is to add context to the sentence, expressing a mood or indicating a specific action. In English, for instance, the phrase "oh well" has no purpose in speech other than to convey a mood. The word 'up' would be a particle in the phrase to 'look up' (as in the phrase "look up this topic"), implying that one researches something, rather than literally gazing skywards. Many languages use particles, in varying amounts and for varying reasons. In Hindi, for instance, they may be used as honorifics, or to indicate emphasis or negation. In some languages they are more clearly defined, such as Chinese, which has three types of zhùcí (助詞; particles): Structural, Aspectual, and Modal. Structural particles are used for grammatical relations. Aspectual particles signal grammatical aspects. Modal particles express linguistic modality. Polynesian languages, which are almost devoid of inflection, use particles extensively to indicate mood, tense, and case.

In modern grammar, a particle is a function word that must be associated with another word or phrase to impart meaning, i.e., does not have its own lexical definition. According to this definition, particles are a separate part of speech and are distinct from other classes of function words, such as articles, prepositions, conjunctions and adverbs. Languages vary widely in how much they use particles, some using them extensively and others more commonly using alternative devices such as prefixes/suffixes, inflection, auxiliary verbs and word order.[citation needed] Particles are typically words that encode grammatical categories (such as negation, mood, tense, or case), clitics, fillers or (oral) discourse markers such as well, um, etc. Particles are never inflected.[1]

Depending on context, the meaning of the term may overlap with concepts such as morpheme, marker, or even adverb as in English phrasal verbs such as out in get out. Under a strict definition, in which a particle must be uninflected, English deictics like this and that would not be classed as such (since they have plurals and are therefore inflected), and neither would Romance articles (since they are inflected for number and gender).

Related Concepts and Ambiguities

This assumes that any function word incapable of inflection is by definition a particle. However, this conflicts with the above statement that particles have no specific lexical function per se, since non-inflecting words that function as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections have a clear lexical function. This disappears if particles are taken to be a separate class of words, where one characteristic (which they share with some words of other classes) is that they do not inflect.[2]

In English

Particle is a somewhat nebulous term for a variety of small words that do not conveniently fit into other classes of words.[3] The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language defines a particle as a "word that does not change its form through inflection and does not fit easily into the established system of parts of speech".[4] The term includes the "adverbial particles" like up or out in verbal idioms (phrasal verbs) such as "look up" or "knock out"; it also includes the "infinitival particle" to, the "negative particle" not, the "imperative particles" do and let, and sometimes "pragmatic particles" (also called "fillers" or "discourse markers") like oh and well.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_particle

03-30-2023-2145 - DRAFT

{TEMPO-, SUR-, DE- ;  -REAL  {DRAFT}}

TEMPOREAL

SURREAL

DEREAL

REAL

[DRAFT]

03-30-2023-2144 - PREFIX, MORPHOLOGICAL DERIVATION ; MORPHOLOGY LINGUISTICS ; AFFIX ; PART OF SPEECH ; SYNTACTIC ; ETC. DRAFT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphological_derivation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(linguistics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affix

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech

In grammar, a part of speech or part-of-speech (abbreviated as POS or PoS, also known as word class^[1] or grammatical category^[2]) is a category of words (or, more generally, of lexical items) that have similar grammatical properties. Words that are assigned to the same part of speech generally display similar syntactic behavior (they play similar roles within the grammatical structure of sentences), sometimes similar morphological behavior in that they undergo inflection for similar properties and even similar semantic behavior. Commonly listed English parts of speech are noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction, interjection, numeral, article, and determiner.

Other terms than part of speech—particularly in modern linguistic classifications, which often make more precise distinctions than the traditional scheme does—include word class, lexical class, and lexical category. Some authors restrict the term lexical category to refer only to a particular type of syntactic category; for them the term excludes those parts of speech that are considered to be function words, such as pronouns. The term form class is also used, although this has various conflicting definitions.^[3] Word classes may be classified as open or closed: open classes (typically including nouns, verbs and adjectives) acquire new members constantly, while closed classes (such as pronouns and conjunctions) acquire new members infrequently, if at all.

Almost all languages have the word classes noun and verb, but beyond these two there are significant variations among different languages.^[4] For example:

• Japanese has as many as three classes of adjectives, where English has one.
• Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese have a class of nominal classifiers.
• Many languages do not distinguish between adjectives and adverbs, or between adjectives and verbs (see stative verb).

Because of such variation in the number of categories and their identifying properties, analysis of parts of speech must be done for each individual language. Nevertheless, the labels for each category are assigned on the basis of universal criteria.^[4] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech

 

03-30-2023-1940 - DRAFT

USA NAC DOM 

THE MENS CIRCLE DOES NOT GENERALLY INCLUDE WOMEN.

MAY INCLUDE ITS, MEN IN SHELL SWAP, WOMEN IMPOSTERS, ETC..

{NOBS_NOGSTEXCL1_NOCHROM_NOGENE_MOD-GEN_ETC./EUNICHS/MODS, ETC..} DRAFT

[JOKE. PETER AND THE WOLF, DIVINE, ETC.]

DRAFT

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

HIGH RANKING WOMEN TWO MEN. 

STEPHANIE ANTON DDS (EXAMPLE) IS ONE MAN [DR ROBERT LEE BETTEY DVM], AND A SON VAR.

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

TWO MEN MAY ACCOMPANY [OR APPEAR TO ACCOMPANY, BE IN RANGE OF, BE IN VIEW OF, BE IN PRESENCE OF, ETC.] ANY WOMAN AT ANY TIME, INCLUDING IN PUBLIC SITUATIONS. (SOME OTHER TRADITIONS, SOME TRADITION, SOMETIMES ISSUE, SOMETIMES EMERGENCY, SOMETIMES ORDER, SOMETIMES COINCIDENCE, ETC.)

IN PUBLIC AT LEAST ONE MAN MAY BE EXPECTED IN PROXIMITY OR REGION, COORDINATION, AXIS, DISPATCH, RADIO (E.G. STANDARD WIRE/WIRELESS POLICE RADIO, HAM RADIO, ETC.), EMERGENCY LAST CALL, ETC.. E.G. PROBLEM SOLVING, DECISION MAKING, RESOLUTION ASSISTANCE, LIMITATION RECITATION, LIMITATION, CESSATION, STAND DOWN, NO RESPONSE, NO RECORD, N/A, UNCERTAIN, UNKNOWN, ETC..

DRAFT

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

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY MAY INCLUDE ANY COMPOSITION. TWO MEN MAY BE EXPECTED AT LOCATIONS OF PUBLIC COMMERCE. ONE MAN MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED IN PROXIMITY OR REGION TO ADDRESS COORDINATION (INC. CALL OUT ZONE, ETC.).  

DRAFT

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

NOTE.

WOMEN GENERALLY SHOULD NEVER BE IN PUBLIC. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL TO ENSURE THAT WOMEN ARE KEPT INDOORS AT ALL TIMES WITHOUT EVER TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. [USA NAC DOM ; ESP. 2000S]

DRAFT

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

USA NAC DOM

NOTE. THE WOMEN REQUIRE HOUSE ARREST AND RESTRAINING ORDERS, PERMANENT. INDIVIDUALLY, NO SLIP BETWEEN THE LINES. BIRTH TO DEATH IN SUBJECT IS DIFFERENT BRAIN-ORIGIN-COMPOSITION-STATE-DIMENSION-FIELD-AGE-POWER-CAPACITY-SPACE_TIME-TIME_SPACE-ETC. THAN PROJECT BUILD WIFE (XLIF VAR, WIFE, ETC.), BUILD MATE (MAN), DESCENDANT (BIRTHRIGHT), THE SUBJECT (SCIENTISTS PRIVATE FEMALE SUBJECT [M.F]), ETC.. DRAFT

PROPOSALS TO OVERPOWER CIVILIAN FIELDS HAS CAUSED DAMAGE TO HOSTAGES, NOT THE HUMAN (SUBJECT). THEFT OF TECHNOLOGY AND ENCUMBANCIES HAS CAUSED COMPLICATION TO INTERNATION AS A COVER FOR ISSUES DETERRABLE WITH ALTERNATE PURSUIT SUBSTITUTIARY. DISRESPECT FOR HUMANKIND AND HUMAN DOES NOT GO AS LOW AS CIVILIANS OR CHANGE (DISCIPLINE COMMITMENT, FACE QUALITY, ASPIRATORY). THE HUMAN SUBJECT PERSISTS AS AN INDOCTRINARY BUILT FOR SUBJECTATION TO EXPERIMENTATION OR FOR USE AND IS OF FECULAR VARIETY MAMMAL ANIMULAR-HUMUNULAR BIOLOGICAL-PHYSICAL FORM ORGANISM CONTAINER LIFEFORM IDEATION DEMAG-FIELD-ZONE GENETICIZED-VIRIZED-ACTIVIZED NESTED SYSTEMULAR UNITARY KIND, ETC.. DRAFT

EACH WOMAN INDIVIDUALLY REQUIRES HOUSE ARREST AND RESTRAINING ORDER. WOMAN CATEGORY INCLUDES CIVILIANS, HUMANS, WOMEN, WOMAN, FEMALE, AMERICA, USA NAC DOM, CAUCASIAN, VARIETIES, ETC.. DUE OVERPOPULATION OF WOMEN, AND FAILURE OF FEMALE TO MALE (SEX COMPLICATIONS, RAPER LIMITATION, GROWING NUMBERS OF WOMEN, IDEOLOGICAL INCOMPATABILITY EDUCATIONARY PROPOSALS TO RENDER NEUTRAL, ETC.). THE NUMBER OF WOMEN CANNOT EXCEED ACCEPTABLE TO THE DON, AND CANNOT BE PROMINENT OVERPOPULATIONARY WORLD ; ESPECIALLY ON FREE ZONING (EUTHANASIA ETC., REQUIRED ON TERM AND DELAY PERMITTANCE IS CIVILIAN). DRAFT

WOMEN HAVE OVERPOPULATED. EXCESS WOMEN ARE REQUIRED TO BE EUTHANIZED HUMANE BY ARMED FORCES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (USA NAC DOM). DRAFT

DRAFT

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

USA NAC DOM/AMERICANS/ET-AL-ETC.

NOTE. WOMEN ARE BIOHAZARDOUS, BY STATE OR NEED OF CARRYATION OF BIOLOGICAL HUMAN PRODUCT/SUBSTANCE OF BIOHAZARDY, STANDARDATION, INDEPENDENTATION, ETC., OR OF REPOSITION OF BIOHAZARD (REPOSITORIATION). 

NOTE. WOMEN ARE BIOHAZARD GRADE CONTAINERS NEVER, AND ENCUMBENT WITH MASSIVE GRADE BIOHAZARD REPOSESSION, POSSESSIONARY, RETENTIONARY, REPOSITORIONARY, ETC.. DRAFT

NOTE. WOMEN ARE CONTAMINATION GRADE ILLEGAL PRESENCE PORTER. FROM CONCEPTION. 

NOTE. WOMEN IN POSSESSION OF BIOHAZARDY IS ILLEGAL, WORLD PERM. 

NOTE. WOMEN ARE IN VIOLATION OF CLAUSE EVERY DAY OF THEIR DAMN LIVES.

NOTE. WOMEN ARE DISGUSTING, GROSS, INFECTED/INFERIOR/DANGEROUS/ETC., VILE, REPULSIVE, ABHORRENT, UNCONSCIONABLE, UNACCEPTABLE, DESPISED, DETESTED, DERANGED, DEVILED, ETC.. DRAFT

NOTE. WOMEN ARE BIOHAZARDOUS, BIOHAZARD GENERATORS, DEGENERATES, JUVENILE DELINQUENTS, OBESE/OVERWEIGHTS/MUSCULAR/DEFORMED/ETC., THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION OF DEFORMITY IS THE WOMAN KIND (LIMIT, LEVEL). THE WOMAN KIND DONATED NO TIME, AND PLEAS IN VILE TO EXTORT FOR EXISTENCE, IN A LEAGUE UNCHARTERED AND AS LOW AS HUMANKIND. THE WOMAN IS THE SUBJECT AND HUMAN IS THE TITLE CLAIM (BACKGROUND/ORIGIN/TYPE/ETC.). THE MAN MAY OR MAY NOT BE HUMAN. THE WOMAN IS HUMAN. EXCEPTIONS EXIST AND OCCURED BY THE INFERIOR CARE OF WOMEN AND THEIR BABES BY WOMEN (NON INTERVENTION POOL, DISPOSALS, ETC.). SUBJECT STANDARD IS ANY HUMAN GROUP, NO EXCEPTIONARIES ENCUMBENT (WERE REMOVED). DRAFT

DRAFT

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

DRAFT

 

03-30-2023-0853 - COLLINS DICTIONARY (ENGLISH THESAURUS) [PERSPECTIVE] {DRAFT}

 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/perspective

03-30-2023-0837 - DETERMINISM (PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW) (SCHOOL OF THOUGHT [PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOLOGY], PERSPECTIVE [POINT OF VIEW, PHILOSOPHY PSYCHOLOGY], APPROACH (TO SCIENTIFIC METHOD), FRAME OF REFERENCE, POSITION, ETC.)

Determinism is a philosophical view, where all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism and even more so nondeterminism (aka randomness). Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.^[1][2]

Determinism is often used to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. This is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state of an object or event is completely determined by its prior states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of determinism mentioned below.

Debates about determinism often concern the scope of determined systems; some maintain that the entire universe is a single determinate system, and others identifying more limited determinate systems (or multiverse). Historical debates involve many philosophical positions and varieties of determinism. They include debates concerning determinism and free will, technically denoted as compatibilistic (allowing the two to coexist) and incompatibilistic (denying their coexistence is a possibility).

Determinism should not be confused with the self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires. Determinism is about interactions which affect our cognitive processes in our life.^[3] It is about the cause and the result of what we have done. Cause and result are always bound together in cognitive processes. It assumes that if an observer has sufficient information about an object or human being, that such an observer might be able to predict every consequent move of that object or human being. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible.

Varieties

"Determinism" may commonly refer to any of the following viewpoints.

Causal

Causal determinism, sometimes synonymous with historical determinism (a sort of path dependence), is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature."^[4] However, it is a broad enough term to consider that:^[5]

...One's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way.

Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing in the universe that has no cause or is self-caused. Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions.^[6] In the case of nomological determinism, these conditions are considered events also, implying that the future is determined completely by preceding events—a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature.^[4] Yet they can also be considered metaphysical of origin (such as in the case of theological determinism).^[5]

Many philosophical theories of determinism frame themselves with the idea that reality follows a sort of predetermined path.

Nomological

Nomological determinism, generally synonymous with physical determinism (its opposite being physical indeterminism), the most common form of causal determinism, is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events. Nomological determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon.^[7] Nomological determinism is sometimes called scientific determinism, although that is a misnomer.

Necessitarianism

Necessitarianism is closely related to the causal determinism described above. It is a metaphysical principle that denies all mere possibility; there is exactly one way for the world to be. Leucippus claimed there were no uncaused events, and that everything occurs for a reason and by necessity.^[8]

Predeterminism

Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.^[9][10] The concept is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain.

Predeterminism can be used to mean such pre-established causal determinism, in which case it is categorized as a specific type of determinism.^[9][11] It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism—in the context of its capacity to determine future events.^[9][12] Despite this, predeterminism is often considered as independent of causal determinism.^[13][14]

Biological

The term predeterminism is also frequently used in the context of biology and heredity, in which case it represents a form of biological determinism, sometimes called genetic determinism.^[15] Biological determinism is the idea that each of human behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by human genetic nature.

Friedrich Nietzsche explained that a human being is "determined" by his/her body, since he/she is subject to passions, impulsions and instincts.^[16]

Fatalism

Fatalism is normally distinguished from "determinism",^[17] as a form of teleological determinism. Fatalism is the idea that everything is fated to happen, so that humans have no control over their future. Fate has arbitrary power, and need not follow any causal or otherwise deterministic laws.^[6] Types of fatalism include hard theological determinism and the idea of predestination, where there is a God who determines all that humans will do. This may be accomplished either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience^[18] or by decreeing their actions in advance.^[19]

Theological

Theological determinism is a form of determinism that holds that all events that happen are either preordained (i.e., predestined) to happen by a monotheistic deity, or are destined to occur given its omniscience. Two forms of theological determinism exist, referred to as strong and weak theological determinism.^[20]

Strong theological determinism is based on the concept of a creator deity dictating all events in history: "everything that happens has been predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent divinity."^[21]

Weak theological determinism is based on the concept of divine foreknowledge—"because God's omniscience is perfect, what God knows about the future will inevitably happen, which means, consequently, that the future is already fixed."^[22] There exist slight variations on this categorisation, however. Some claim either that theological determinism requires predestination of all events and outcomes by the divinity—i.e., they do not classify the weaker version as theological determinism unless libertarian free will is assumed to be denied as a consequence—or that the weaker version does not constitute theological determinism at all.^[23]

With respect to free will, "theological determinism is the thesis that God exists and has infallible knowledge of all true propositions including propositions about our future actions," more minimal criteria designed to encapsulate all forms of theological determinism.^[24]

Theological determinism can also be seen as a form of causal determinism, in which the antecedent conditions are the nature and will of God.^[5] Some have asserted that Augustine of Hippo introduced theological determinism into Christianity in 412 CE, whereas all prior Christian authors supported free will against Stoic and Gnostic determinism.^[25] However, there are many Biblical passages that seem to support the idea of some kind of theological determinism.

Adequate

Adequate determinism is the idea, because of quantum decoherence, that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics).^[26] Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales.^[27] Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).^{[citation needed]}

Many-worlds

The many-worlds interpretation accepts the linear causal sets of sequential events with adequate consistency yet also suggests constant forking of causal chains creating "multiple universes" to account for multiple outcomes from single events.^[28] Meaning the causal set of events leading to the present are all valid yet appear as a singular linear time stream within a much broader unseen conic probability field of other outcomes that "split off" from the locally observed timeline. Under this model causal sets are still "consistent" yet not exclusive to singular iterated outcomes.

The interpretation sidesteps the exclusive retrospective causal chain problem of "could not have done otherwise" by suggesting "the other outcome does exist" in a set of parallel universe time streams that split off when the action occurred. This theory is sometimes described with the example of agent based choices but more involved models argue that recursive causal splitting occurs with all particle wave functions at play.^[29] This model is highly contested with multiple objections from the scientific community.^{[such as?]}

Philosophical varieties

Determinism in nature/nurture controversy

Nature and nurture interact in humans. A scientist looking at a sculpture after some time does not ask whether we are seeing the effects of the starting materials or of environmental influences.

Although some of the above forms of determinism concern human behaviors and cognition, others frame themselves as an answer to the debate on nature and nurture. They will suggest that one factor will entirely determine behavior. As scientific understanding has grown, however, the strongest versions of these theories have been widely rejected as a single-cause fallacy.^[30] In other words, the modern deterministic theories attempt to explain how the interaction of both nature and nurture is entirely predictable. The concept of heritability has been helpful in making this distinction.

• Biological determinism, sometimes called genetic determinism, is the idea that each of human behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by human genetic nature.
• Behaviorism involves the idea that all behavior can be traced to specific causes—either environmental or reflexive. John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner developed this nurture-focused determinism.
• Cultural materialism, contends that the physical world impacts and sets constraints on human behavior.
• Cultural determinism, along with social determinism, is the nurture-focused theory that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are.
• Environmental determinism, also known as climatic or geographical determinism, proposes that the physical environment, rather than social conditions, determines culture. Supporters of environmental determinism often^[quantify] also support behavioral determinism. Key proponents of this notion have included Ellen Churchill Semple, Ellsworth Huntington, Thomas Griffith Taylor and possibly Jared Diamond, although his status as an environmental determinist is debated.^[31]

Determinism and prediction

A technological determinist might suggest that technology like the mobile phone is the greatest factor shaping human civilization.

Other "deterministic"^[opinion] theories actually seek only to highlight the importance of a particular factor in predicting the future. These theories often use the factor as a sort of guide or constraint on the future. They need not suppose that complete knowledge of that one factor would allow the making of perfect predictions.

• Psychological determinism can mean that humans must act according to reason, but it can also be synonymous with some sort of psychological egoism. The latter is the view that humans will always act according to their perceived best interest.
• Linguistic determinism proposes that language determines (or at least limits) the things that humans can think and say and thus know. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis argues that individuals experience the world based on the grammatical structures they habitually use.
• Economic determinism attributes primacy to economic structure over politics in the development of human history. It is associated with the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx.
• Technological determinism is the theory that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values.

Structural

Structural determinism is the philosophical view that actions, events, and processes are predicated on and determined by structural factors.^[32] Given any particular structure or set of estimable components, it is a concept that emphasizes rational and predictable outcomes. Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela popularized the notion, writing that a living system's general order is maintained via a circular process of ongoing self-referral, and thus its organization and structure defines the changes it undergoes.^[33] According to the authors, a system can undergo changes of state (alteration of structure without loss of identity) or disintegrations (alteration of structure with loss of identity). Such changes or disintegrations are not ascertained by the elements of the disturbing agent, as each disturbance will only trigger responses in the respective system, which in turn, are determined by each system’s own structure.

On an individualistic level, what this means is that human beings as free and independent entities are triggered to react by external stimuli or change in circumstance. However, their own internal state and existing physical and mental capacities determine their responses to those triggers. On a much broader societal level, structural determinists believe that larger issues in the society—especially those pertaining to minorities and subjugated communities—are predominantly assessed through existing structural conditions, making change of prevailing conditions difficult, and sometimes outright impossible. For example, the concept has been applied to the politics of race in the United States of America and other Western countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, with structural determinists lamenting structural factors for the prevalence of racism in these countries.^[34] Additionally, Marxists have conceptualized the writings of Karl Marx within the context of structural determinism as well. For example, Louis Althusser, a structural Marxist, argues that the state, in its political, economic, and legal structures, reproduces the discourse of capitalism, in turn, allowing for the burgeoning of capitalistic structures.

Proponents of the notion highlight the usefulness of structural determinism to study complicated issues related to race and gender, as it highlights often gilded structural conditions that block meaningful change.^[35] Critics call it too rigid, reductionist and inflexible. Additionally, they also criticize the notion for overemphasizing deterministic forces such as structure over the role of human agency and the ability of the people to act. These critics argue that politicians, academics, and social activists have the capability to bring about significant change despite stringent structural conditions.

With free will

Main article: Free will

Philosophers have debated both the truth of determinism, and the truth of free will. This creates the four possible positions in the figure. Compatibilism refers to the view that free will is, in some sense, compatible with determinism. The three incompatibilist positions deny this possibility. The hard incompatibilists hold that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, the libertarians that determinism does not hold, and free will might exist, and the hard determinists that determinism does hold and free will does not exist. The Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza was a determinist thinker, and argued that human freedom can be achieved through knowledge of the causes that determine our desire and affections. He defined human servitude as the state of bondage of anyone who is aware of their own desires, but ignorant of the causes that determined them. However, the free or virtuous person becomes capable, through reason and knowledge, to be genuinely free, even as they are being "determined". For the Dutch philosopher, acting out of one's own internal necessity is genuine freedom while being driven by exterior determinations is akin to bondage. Spinoza's thoughts on human servitude and liberty are respectively detailed in the fourth^[36] and fifth^[37] volumes of his work Ethics.

The standard argument against free will, according to philosopher J. J. C. Smart, focuses on the implications of determinism for free will.^[38] He suggests free will is denied whether determinism is true or not. He says that if determinism is true, all actions are predicted and no one is assumed to be free; however, if determinism is false, all actions are presumed to be random and as such no one seems free because they have no part in controlling what happens.

With the soul

Some determinists argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe, because while it can describe determinate interactions among material things, it ignores the minds or souls of conscious beings.

A number of positions can be delineated:

• Immaterial souls are all that exist (idealism).
• Immaterial souls exist and exert a non-deterministic causal influence on bodies (traditional free-will, interactionist dualism).^[39][40]
• Immaterial souls exist but are part of a deterministic framework.
• Immaterial souls exist, but exert no causal influence, free or determined (epiphenomenalism, occasionalism)
• Immaterial souls do not exist – there is no mind-body dichotomy, and there is a materialistic explanation for intuitions to the contrary.

With ethics and morality

Another topic of debate is the implication that determinism has on morality.

Philosopher and incompatibilist Peter van Inwagen introduced this thesis, when arguments that free will is required for moral judgments, as such:^[41]

1. The moral judgment that X should not have been done implies that something else should have been done instead.
2. That something else should have been done instead implies that there was something else to do.
3. That there was something else to do, implies that something else could have been done.
4. That something else could have been done implies that there is free will.
5. If there is no free will to have done other than X we cannot make the moral judgment that X should not have been done.

History

Determinism was developed by the Greek philosophers during the 7th and 6th centuries BCE by the Pre-socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Leucippus, later Aristotle, and mainly by the Stoics. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayyám, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d'Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ralph Waldo Emerson and, more recently, John Searle, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.

Mecca Chiesa notes that the probabilistic or selectionistic determinism of B. F. Skinner comprised a wholly separate conception of determinism that was not mechanistic at all. Mechanistic determinism assumes that every event has an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, but a selectionistic or probabilistic model does not.^[42][43] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Point of view (philosophy), in philosophy and psychology, the context for opinions, beliefs and experiences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#approaches

https://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/perspective

DRAFT

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

NOTE. PAN, PANORAMA, FRAME, BACKGROUND, STRUCTURE, POINTS, LINES, IMAGE, LEVEL, DEPTH, SENSATION, PERCEPTION, COGNITION, ALGORITHM, ANALYTICS, REASON, LOGIC, RATIONALE, OUTLINE, SLANT, VIEWPOINT, ATTITUDE, CONTEXT, CONTENT, EXPECTATION, PROSPECT, LINEAR-PERSPECTIVE, NARROW FOCUS, LENS, ANGLE OF APPROACH, CONCENTRATION, ATTENTION, BIAS, DISTORTION, OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION, OBSERVER, OBSERVATION, OBJECT, OBJECTIVE, ELUCIDATION, PREDILICTION, INCLINATION, INFERENCE, DISPOSITION, DEMEANOR, DISPARAGEMENT, DIRECTION, DISTANCE, ASPECT, VIEWPOINT, POINT OF ANALYSIS, OUTLIER, SCATTER, RANDOM, PERIPHERY, DETRACTOR, DISTRACTION, DETERRANT, DIVERSION, DECOY, DECEPTION, DERANGEMENT, DEFERRAL, PROCLIVITY, OPINION, PREFERENCE, VIEW, CONTAINMENT, BOUNDS, DEFINERS, QUALIFIERS, IDENTIFIERS, CATEGORIZERS, CATEGORIES, CLASSIFIERS, QUANTIFIERS, EQUATIZERS, OPERATORS, OPERATIONS, ZERO POINT, STRUCTURE, SCHEMATIC, SCHEMA, SCHEME, FUNCTION, STATISTICS, INFERENCE, DEDUCTION, EXTRAPOLATION, INTERPOLATION, ILLUSTRATION, EXAMPLE, PERMUTATION/COMMUNICATION/CONVERSION/COMMUNITIZATION/PERTURBATION/ABERRATION/DERIVATION/INTEGRATION/DEVIATION/PROPERTIZATION/ETC., COMMUTATIVE, ETC..

DRAFT

03-30-2023-0836 - Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon[1] or creeping determinism

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon^[1] or creeping determinism,^[2] is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they were.^[3][4]

People often believe that after an event has occurred, they would have predicted or perhaps even would have known with a high degree of certainty what the outcome of the event would have been before the event occurred. Hindsight bias may cause distortions of memories of what was known or believed before an event occurred, and is a significant source of overconfidence regarding an individual's ability to predict the outcomes of future events.^[5] Examples of hindsight bias can be seen in the writings of historians describing outcomes of battles, physicians recalling clinical trials, and in judicial systems as individuals attribute responsibility on the basis of the supposed predictability of accidents.^[6][7][2]

In some countries, 20/20 indicates normal visual acuity at 20 feet, from which derives the idiom "hindsight is 20/20". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

03-30-2023-0835 - formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur

In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur^[1] (/ˌnɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər/; Latin for "[it] does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.^[2] It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion.^[3] Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

While a logical argument is a non sequitur if, and only if, it is invalid, the term "non sequitur" typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "non sequitur" refers to an unnamed formal fallacy.

A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. A formal fallacy; however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion.

Taxonomy

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Prior Analytics is Aristotle's treatise on deductive reasoning and the syllogism. The standard Aristotelian logical fallacies are:

• Fallacy of four terms (Quaternio terminorum);
• Fallacy of the undistributed middle;
• Fallacy of illicit process of the major or the minor term;
• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Other logical fallacies include:

• The self-reliant fallacy

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy—a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument, which renders the argument invalid.

It is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument that is problematic for any reason, and encompasses informal fallacies as well as formal fallacies—valid but unsound claims or poor non-deductive argumentation.

The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion (see fallacy fallacy). Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.

Affirming the consequent

Main article: Affirming the consequent

Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Even if the premise and conclusion are both true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise. This sort of non sequitur is also called affirming the consequent.

An example of affirming the consequent would be:

1. If Jackson is a human (A), then Jackson is a mammal. (B)
2. Jackson is a mammal. (B)
3. Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A)

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise:

1. Humans are mammals.
2. Jackson is a mammal.
3. Therefore, Jackson is a human.

The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premise – it is a 'non sequitur', since Jackson might be a mammal without being human. He might be an elephant.

Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the antecedent

Main article: Denying the antecedent

Another common non sequitur is this:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. A is false.
3. Therefore, B is false.

While B can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur. This is called denying the antecedent.

An example of denying the antecedent would be:

1. If I am Japanese, then I am Asian.
2. I am not Japanese.
3. Therefore, I am not Asian.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. The statement's declarant could be another ethnicity of Asia, e.g., Chinese, in which case the premise would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Affirming a disjunct

Main article: Affirming a disjunct

Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

1. A or B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is not true.*

The conclusion does not follow from the premise as it could be the case that A and B are both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.

An example of affirming a disjunct would be:

1. I am at home or I am in the city.
2. I am at home.
3. Therefore, I am not in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could be in both the city and their home, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

*Note that this is only a logical fallacy when the word "or" is in its inclusive form. If the two possibilities in question are mutually exclusive, this is not a logical fallacy. For example,

1. I am either at home or I am in the city. (but not both)
2. I am at home.
3. Therefore, I am not in the city.

Denying a conjunct

Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

1. It is not the case that A and B are both true.
2. B is not true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise as it could be the case that A and B are both false.

An example of denying a conjunct would be:

1. I cannot be both at home and in the city.
2. I am not at home.
3. Therefore, I am in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premise would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Illicit commutativity

Illicit commutativity is a fallacy when in the following form:

1. If A is the case, then B is the case.
2. Therefore, if B is the case, then A is the case.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise as unlike other logical connectives, the implies operator is one-way only. "P and Q" is the same as "Q and P", but "P implies Q" is not the same as "Q implies P".

An example of this fallacy is as follows:

1. If it is raining, then I have my umbrella.
2. If I have my umbrella, then it is raining.

While this may appear to be a reasonable argument, it is not valid because the first statement does not logically guarantee the second statement. The first statement says nothing like "I do not have my umbrella otherwise", which means that having my umbrella on a sunny day would render the first statement true and the second statement false.

Fallacy of the undistributed middle

Main article: Fallacy of the undistributed middle

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

1. All Zs are Bs.
2. Y is a B.
3. Therefore, Y is a Z.

It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs", but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument.

An example can be given as follows, where B=mammals, Y=Mary and Z=humans:

1. All humans are mammals.
2. Mary is a mammal.
3. Therefore, Mary is a human.

Note that if the terms (Z and B) were swapped around in the first co-premise then it would no longer be a fallacy and would be correct.

In contrast to informal fallacy

Main article: Informal fallacy

Formal logic is not used to determine whether or not an argument is true. Formal arguments can either be valid or invalid. A valid argument may also be sound or unsound:

• A valid argument has a correct formal structure. A valid argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
• A sound argument is a formally correct argument that also contains true premises.

Ideally, the best kind of formal argument is a sound, valid argument.

Formal fallacies do not take into account the soundness of an argument, but rather its validity. Premises in formal logic are commonly represented by letters (most commonly p and q). A fallacy occurs when the structure of the argument is incorrect, despite the truth of the premises.

As modus ponens, the following argument contains no formal fallacies:

1. If P then Q
2. P
3. Therefore, Q

A logical fallacy associated with this format of argument is referred to as affirming the consequent, which would look like this:

1. If P then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore, P

This is a fallacy because it does not take into account other possibilities. To illustrate this more clearly, substitute the letters with premises:

1. If it rains, the street will be wet.
2. The street is wet.
3. Therefore, it rained.

Although it is possible that this conclusion is true, it does not necessarily mean it must be true. The street could be wet for a variety of other reasons that this argument does not take into account. If we look at the valid form of the argument, we can see that the conclusion must be true:

1. If it rains, the street will be wet.
2. It rained.
3. Therefore, the street is wet.

This argument is valid and, if it did rain, it would also be sound.

If statements 1 and 2 are true, it absolutely follows that statement 3 is true. However, it may still be the case that statement 1 or 2 is not true. For example:

1. If Albert Einstein makes a statement about science, it is correct.
2. Albert Einstein states that all quantum mechanics is deterministic.
3. Therefore, it's true that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

In this case, statement 1 is false. The particular informal fallacy being committed in this assertion is argument from authority. By contrast, an argument with a formal fallacy could still contain all true premises:

1. If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs.
2. My cat has four legs.
3. Therefore, my cat is a dog.

Although 1 and 2 are true statements, 3 does not follow because the argument commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

An argument could contain both an informal fallacy and a formal fallacy yet lead to a conclusion that happens to be true, for example, again affirming the consequent, now also from an untrue premise:

1. If a scientist makes a statement about science, it is correct.
2. It is true that quantum mechanics is deterministic.
3. Therefore, a scientist has made a statement about it.

Common examples

Main article: List of fallacies

"Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!"^[4]

"The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!"^[5]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

An Euler diagram illustrating a fallacy:
Statement 1: Most of the green is touching the red.
Statement 2: Most of the red is touching the blue.
Logical fallacy: Since most of the green is touching red, and most of the red is touching blue, most of the green must be touching blue. This, however, is a false statement.

In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle:

1. Most Rimnars are Jornars.
2. Most Jornars are Dimnars.
3. Therefore, most Rimnars are Dimnars.

This is fallacious. And so is this:

1. People in Kentucky support a border fence.
2. People in New York do not support a border fence.
3. Therefore, people in New York do not support people in Kentucky.

Indeed, there is no logical principle that states:

1. For some x, P(x).
2. For some x, Q(x).
3. Therefore, for some x, P(x) and Q(x).

An easy way to show the above inference as invalid is by using Venn diagrams. In logical parlance, the inference is invalid, since under at least one interpretation of the predicates it is not validity preserving.

People often have difficulty applying the rules of logic. For example, a person may say the following syllogism is valid, when in fact it is not:

1. All birds have beaks.
2. That creature has a beak.
3. Therefore, that creature is a bird.

"That creature" may well be a bird, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Certain other animals also have beaks, for example: an octopus and a squid both have beaks, some turtles and cetaceans have beaks. Errors of this type occur because people reverse a premise.^[6] In this case, "All birds have beaks" is converted to "All beaked animals are birds." The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any instances of beaked creatures besides birds—but this premise is not the one that was given. In this way, the deductive fallacy is formed by points that may individually appear logical, but when placed together are shown to be incorrect.

Non sequitur in everyday speech

Main article: Non sequitur (literary device)

See also: Derailment (thought disorder)

In everyday speech, a non sequitur is a statement in which the final part is totally unrelated to the first part, for example:

Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.

— West with the Night, Beryl Markham^[7]

See also

• Philosophy portal
• Psychology portal

• List of fallacies – List of faulty argument types
• Apophasis – Stating something by saying the opposite
• Cognitive bias – Systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
• Demagogue – Politician or orator who panders to fears and emotions of the public
• Fallacies of definition
• False statement – statement that's not true
• Mathematical fallacy, also known as Invalid proof – Certain type of mistaken proof
• Modus tollens – Rule of logical inference
• Paradox – Statement that apparently contradicts itself
• Relevance logic – mathematical logic system that imposes certain restrictions on implication
• Scientific misconceptions – False beliefs about science
• Sophist – Teacher in ancient Greece (5th century BC)
• Soundness – Logical term meaning that an argument is valid and its premises are true

References

Notes

Barker, Stephen F. (2003) [1965]. "Chapter 6: Fallacies". The Elements of Logic (Sixth ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp. 160–169. ISBN 0-07-283235-5.

Harry J. Gensler, The A to Z of Logic (2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 9780810875968

Labossiere, Michael (1995). "Description of Fallacies". The Nizkor Project. Retrieved 2008-09-09.

"Master List of Logical Fallacies". utminers.utep.edu.

Daniel Adrian Doss; William H. Glover Jr.; Rebecca A. Goza; Michael Wigginton Jr. (17 October 2014). The Foundations of Communication in Criminal Justice Systems. CRC Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-4822-3660-6. Retrieved 21 May 2016.

Wade, Carole; Carol Tavris (1990). "Eight". In Donna DeBenedictis (ed.). Psychology. Laura Pearson (2 ed.). New York: Harper and Row. pp. 287–288. ISBN 0-06-046869-6.

7. Quoted in Hindes, Steve (2005). Think for Yourself!: an Essay on Cutting through the Babble, the Bias, and the Hype. Fulcrum Publishing. p. 86. ISBN 1-55591-539-6. Retrieved 2011-10-04.

Bibliography

• Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi.
• William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (ca. 1323) Part III.4.
• John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
• Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, XXIIIff Archived 2020-02-14 at the Wayback Machine.
• The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten – The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), by Arthur Schopenhauer
• John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic – Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion.
• C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies. Methuen London, 1970.
• Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959.
• Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8
• D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks, 1970.
• Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1992.
• Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998.
• Sagan, Carl, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books, March 1997 ISBN 0-345-40946-9, 480 pp. 1996 hardback edition: Random House, ISBN 0-394-53512-X

External links

Wikiversity has learning resources about Recognizing Fallacies

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Formal fallacies.

Fallacies (list)

Categories:

• Formal fallacies
• Barriers to critical thinking
• Deductive reasoning
• Philosophical logic

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy