shira: First, Moonbeam, you have made "that assumption." For you to have fully comprehended the question, you had to have made the assumption at least temporarily.
M: It wasn't an assumption. Knowledge not in evidence was presented as fact.
s: One cannot understand another fully without putting oneself in the other's shoes, socks, underpants, slacks, undershirt, shirt, and hat. And once the assumption was made, why backtrack and avoid speculating?
M: Who understood another, much less fully?. I understood nothing and that's why I see the assumptions just as I see the ones you make here.
s: Second, in that post of yours I quoted, you DID compare your personal not-knowing-anything with that of another. So unless you've unlearned even more stuff since that previous post, your "how are you going to compare" sounds inconsistent.
M: I pointed out that somebody knew stuff I no longer make assumptions about because he made the assumptions. I don't believe what his assumptions tell him are truths. I stated a fact that he takes on faith more than me. The notion that I am comparing is what you brought to the table because it's what you are doing, engaging in a battle of wits to be sure you don't come out on the short end. You compare because you're competitive because you have an internal war. You have needs that act on you unconsciously.
s: But what do I know, right?
M: I don't know but what do you feel? That's the important question to me.
s: And the exciting answer to that last question is - even less than you. Ooooooooooooo
M: Help yourself to your imaginary win. What you need to get over on me I don't need to get over on you.