/sci/ - Science & Math

[M. Fractals No.7764838]

What Makes a Character: Deriving Non-Conformity

In the reduction of rational, the standard definitions intention within personality gives the variance of the elementary rendition of persuasion within the characterization of the standardized environment of which can found to be deigned that of a 'fit' in a given grouping; this implies that when suspending the characterization of a study of a environment you will find a simplistic chain of redactions that correspond to bring to fruition only minor confrontation with each other, this set of variances is systematic with the nature of what makes some more agreeable to others and vice versa....

[M. Fractals No.7764846]

>>7764838
Now, when adopting the premise that some of these elementary functions are to much of a supplicant to a point of over reacting to every sentiment and leaving no room for the confrontation that makes the grounds for scaled reaction or that of over baring to a point of leaving the rest of the groups set in a deformed wreck of insecurity does a balance begin to throw the boat of the group over like a wave leaving few traces of it having been in the first place and does each set of bodies embodied with these traces acquire a new dimension of being that leaves for concurring elements of characterization to arise in their independent fermenting in which ever style they fall out into, this is a beautiful rendition of naturalizationed rational in group description: the extension here is that when there is a correspondence is that well sectioned into a given social nuance you find that a change emerges until there is a likeness through all elements of the group, similar to how the base proof symbiotic for math is one; the point being made is that although non-conformity does exist, it doesn't exist very easily short of being groomed from birth and then placed with intention; and in this do we find that it's more social than that of being of more diverse interests or varying categorization of personal style.
What is it that makes the statement of being different; if anything it must be self definition, the difference between having the luster of depth that lets be that piece of stoniness of grounded platonicy with the fabrics of the world while still having a hidden status of what could align them more justly with the factions of situational variances of what each individual in a party might or might not desire to be endeared with, really just a problem of needing more samples than the average laymen is willing or brave enough to go out and find, which is a problem that is swept under the carpet in regards to the health of a society

[Anonymous No.7764961]

>>7764838
>>7764846

You posted this again without proofreading.

Schizophrenic namefag pls go.

[M. Fractals No.7765054]

>>7764961
actually I did proof read it, that's why I reposted it along with a couple other bits I added

Can you point out where you think there is a syntax error or what you perceive somewhere in the body of text as to far of a grammar reduction?

[Anonymous No.7765081]

>>7765054
You're trying to sound smart when you aren't and it's painfully obvious.

[Anonymous No.7765100]

>>7765054
>What Makes a Character: Deriving Non-Conformity
In the reduction of rational, the standard definitions intention
>intention of what, what definition, to what standard do you refer... you have launched into diatribe without any references or backstory. It's gibberish but I'll continue to pull this paragraph apart for you.
within personality gives the variance of the elementary rendition of persuasion within the characterization of the standardized environment
>This doesn't mean anything. It's a string of long words.
of which can found to be deigned that of a 'fit' in a given grouping; this implies that when suspending the characterization of a study of a environment you will find a simplistic chain of redactions that correspond to bring to fruition only minor confrontation with each other, this set of variances is systematic with the nature of what makes some more agreeable to others and vice versa....
>this bit is sound, but without reference it holds no meaning.

[M. Fractals No.7765971]

>>7765100
>intention of what, what definition, to what standard do you refer...
Because a title has no barring on what you're writing

>This doesn't mean anything. It's a string of long words.
>within the characterization of the standardized environment
Seems pretty obvious what that's saying, hooked up to the back of
>intention within personality gives the variance of the elementary rendition of persuasion
says that when there is a bonding of the environment with the group that the persuasion of that of the direction of the dialog or point of the group is more orientated and without distraction

>this implies that when suspending the characterization of a study of a environment you will find a simplistic chain of redactions that correspond to bring to fruition only minor confrontation with each other, this set of variances is systematic with the nature of what makes some more agreeable to others and vice versa
This says when you're not having any issues of environmental factor that you notice that the dialog of the group is simplistically said as redactions, or editing, in what it is that is being discussed and that the set and/or dj style turn-table set of Markov chains of the topic in question are critical to where the hindrances and accelerators of the topic are and become paraphrasable to further outline, in the editings, what the argument is holding its sect of belief in

[Anonymous No.7766966]

>>7765971

No. You are posting word salads.

Your response interests me. It's possible that you understand your word salads after writing them. However I have never before encountered somebody who writes word salads and who is able to understand them afterwards. In any case you are unable to properly communicate their meaning.

This leads me to a second conclusion. You don't understand your word salads after writing them, and refuse to acknowledge this even to yourself. This results in you producing more word salad.

The second conclusion is much more likely. Imagination is a powerful tool bro, but when it's allowed to run rampant and dominate the actions of an individual it becomes powerfully destructive.

You need to put a leash on your imagination in order to be able to harvest positive energy from it. But I'm guessing you don't want to, that you enjoy the insight you perceive in spite of it being a delusion.

You're interesting but only you can help yourself.

[M. Fractals No.7767011]

>>7766966
Okay for one, it aint word salad, what it can be expressed as is every word having a variable with the expression of its variances being what their potential linkage might amount to

So when reading think of each of the words less than accumulations of letters, but single tied elementary sectors of the language you're looking at
The subject matter is not all that dense and the floof is infrequently spread
I've had discussions with a like writting style being used and to the benefit of whomever I was talking with at the time and myself to the means of simply: an enjoyable discussion

I know not everyone can read this style and its a damned shame but if you're not up to par with the pairing of junctions that occur about the subject matter then ask another question

[Anonymous No.7767113]

>>7767011
What I'm saying is that you are too far toward the unintelligible side of the scale with this one.

Using long words and complicated sentence structure is one thing. Making communication so complicated that nobody else can participate is another entirely. My guess is that your other writings weren't THIS bad.

I'm telling you you need to work on it if you want a real conversation. Sometimes I guess you get it right, or come close enough to fool others, but this is not one of those circumstances.