8/18/2018

Salutations.

It is now 9:34 AM EST for me. The music video I am recommending for this advice is from the song ‘You Deserve Better’ by British singer James Arthur. I just saw the entire music video for the 1st time about half an hour ago. Here’s a quote from wikipedia:

‘ The lyrics of the song tell of a man who believes that his lover would be better off without him. ‘

To watch the music video ‘You Deserve Better’ for free, search for phrase ‘james arthur you deserve better’ from www.youtube.com, and it should be one of the 1st selections offered, with over 4.8 million views. The music video was made available on youtube on 7/12/2018, just over a month ago.

Here’s a copy of part of the lyrics of song ‘You Deserve Better’:

You deserve better, better, better than me
Might be what you want, but I’m not what you need
You’re better, better than you even realize

You deserve better, better, better than me
Might be what you want, but I want you to see
You’re better off without me in your life

This is the explanation I recommend that you use to evaluate music video ‘You Deserve Better’, if you choose to watch it. Although I have no proof, it is my belief that adult women who are dating learned the hard way that there are things that should not be said to men, at least in the beginning of the relationship, because they will get the ‘wrong idea’ interpreting such notions. As a refurbished illustration example, here is a quote from movie ‘The Wedding Ringer(2015)’ starring Kaley Cuoco as Gretchen Palmer, and Kevin Hart as Jimmy Callahan. You can streaming rent the movie from Amazon.com, and according to Amazon Video, the scene starts 1 hour, 26 minutes, and 41 seconds into the movie. Jimmy Callahan and Gretchen Palmer are talking. Here is the quote:

Jimmy Callahan: ‘But at least you have Doug. True love conquers all.’

Gretchen Palmer: ‘True love? (scoffs) Please. I’m just sick of dating jerks. Doug is a good guy, he’s good family material. What can I say? I’m a girl that’s used to a certain kind of lifestyle, and Doug can give me that kind of lifestyle.’

Of course, that scene is from a comedy movie. It’s not real. But I believe you can still refurbish it to convey a certain meaning. So, refurbished for advice, I can make a story using that scene, and here it is: Gretchen just said something to Jimmy Callahan that she has believed in for many years, and yet neither Jimmy nor Doug(Josh Gad) has no preferred understanding as to what Gretchen meant. And so, both Jimmy and Doug both got the ‘wrong idea’ as to what she meant when she said those words to Jimmy. So, this is how I recommend you use the music video ‘You Deserve Better’: Imagine 2 people are dating. You don’t have to be specific about it. Let’s say one is a man and one is a woman. They’re both young adults. Now, you know(imagined) that the woman has many notions in her mind that she is not revealing to that man because he would get the ‘wrong idea’, notions that are not terrible to think about, but if the man were to know about just a few of those notions, he would respond like the lyrics to the song ‘You Deserve Better’. For at least a short moment, he would think that he is not good enough for her, and that she would be better off without him. It’s that type of thinking that caused the woman to not reveal such notions to that man, because she believes the man she is dating would get the ‘wrong idea’. It is my belief that more and more people in America are learning to continue participating with certain situations, even though they are exposed to certain disappointments associated with such situations. However, even though that may be true, by definition, if a man is introduced to a notion that a woman believes such a man would get the ‘wrong idea’, at least contemplationally for a short moment, it is likely that man would still get the ‘wrong idea’.

To be clear, based on my interpretation of the movie ‘The Wedding Ringer’, those words Gretchen said to Jimmy caused Doug to cancel the wedding.

Angry: [8/18/2018(Anger):]

To create some sort of contemplation circulation for this advice, I recommend that you use the refurbished ‘Plot summary’ from www.wikipedia.com for the movie ‘Pacific Heights(1990)’, starring Michael Keaton as Carter Hayes, and the unmarried couple Drake Goodman(Matthew Modine) and Patty Palmer(Melanie Griffith). Here are the refurbished quotes for advice from the ‘Plot summary’ from the movie ‘Pacific Heights’ from www.wikipedia.com:

‘ Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton) is in bed with a woman, Ann Miller (Beverly D’Angelo), when he is suddenly verbally attacked by two men. After the men have left, Hayes calmly tells Ann, “The worst is over”. ‘

‘ The heavy stress takes its toll on the couple; Drake drinks heavily and Patty suffers. Hayes visits the couple to offer his condolences, but an infuriated Drake attacks him and is arrested by the police, whom Hayes had already called to the scene in anticipation of an assault. ‘

And so, here is my explanation about idea ‘Angry’ with those 2 refurbished for advice references: To be clear, even though I am not a psychiatrist, it is my belief that expressing anger is not just speaking loudly at someone, like 2 people might do who have a grievance with each other. A person can express anger, and also not be violent with such an expression. That being said, for the adults, when you attended school, maybe some of you experienced corporal punishment(according to wikipedia.org, it is most often practiced on minors, especially in home and school settings.) Of course, it is my belief that corporal punishment is generalistically no longer legal and permitted in American schools. Still, it is my belief that students still experience some sort of disciplinary action when they are caught doing something wrong, such as detention, or something uniquely specific to the schools such students are attending. For example, when I attended school, one of the students said something in class that some of us laughed about, but the teacher was openly offended and angry about that statement.

In a job related setting, for the adults, a boss may non violently express anger about something that an employee did, and that employee may respond to that anger by rectifying(to make, put, or set right; remedy; correct) what the employee did.

[I want to buy food early, and I chose ‘Pizza Hut’ for food today. According to the website, it opens 11:00 AM, so I’m going to order now. That way, I will be more prepared to finish this list today, and not allow my hunger for food to interrupt me from typing. So, I plan to start again in 2 hours. The pizza should arrive by then, and I’ll be ready to continue. So, I’ll see you in 2 hours.]

It is now 12:32 PM EST for me. The point I am trying to make is that, in both the school and work situation, the student and the employee are trying to reciprocate(to give, feel, etc., in return) and requite(to make payment or return for) the anger he/she was presented. So, when such a student and employee who reciprocates and requites within reason anger presented to him/her, when such a person articulates anger to an instigator caused by that instigator’s instigation, it makes sense to me that such a person would also expect his/her anger to be reciprocated and requited, even if that reciprocation and requiting is expected to come from the instigator who instigated him/her. And that’s where the refurbished ‘Plot summary’ from movie ‘Pacific Heights’ comes in. Here’s the 1st refurbished quote from the ‘Plot summary’:

‘ Carter Hayes (Michael Keaton) is in bed with a woman, Ann Miller (Beverly D’Angelo), when he is suddenly verbally attacked by two men. After the men have left, Hayes calmly tells Ann, “The worst is over”. ‘

I looked at Amazon.com, and the movie ‘Pacific Heights’ is not available for streaming. I think it’s been years since I saw the movie myself, so I stipulate to the possible fact that Carter Hayes was beaten up by two men. However, you don’t need that literal interpretation to use the verbal quote from wikipedia. Refurbished, you can just imagine that Carter Hayes was verbally assaulted by two men for this idea. My interpretation of the movie is that Carter Hayes for money unethically, maliciously, and intentionally depreciates the value of the house that he temporarily lives in in order in order to acquire something about it. One obvious way Mr. Hayes goes about doing that is improperly imposing a non-reciprocating and non-requiting response to the anger to the actual owners of the house. In the 1st quote, the two men verbally assaulted him. You can just imagine what he did to the original owner of that house. The original owner expressed anger at him, but whatever responses Mr. Hayes gave that original owner, it eventually caused the original owner of that house to send two men to verbally assault him.

Now, here’s the 2nd refurbished quote:

‘ The heavy stress takes its toll on the couple; Drake drinks heavily and Patty suffers. Hayes visits the couple to offer his condolences, but an infuriated Drake attacks him and is arrested by the police, whom Hayes had already called to the scene in anticipation of an assault. ‘

When Mr. Hayes visited the couple to offer his condolences, he did so insincerely, wanting that couple to again respond in anger, an anger that will not again get considerate reciprocation and requiting. According to the quote, Mr. Hayes prepared the police for a situation that Mr. Hayes was going to be attacked by Drake, and when the police witnessed such an attack, Drake was arrested. For an actual similar illustration that is available streaming from Amazon.com, I recommend episode 1.9 ‘The Snow Job’ from crime tv show ‘Leverage(2009)’. Here’s a quote from wikipedia.org about the episode:

‘ Nate has an emotional connection to the case of a National Guardsman whose home was foreclosed by a crooked contractor. ‘

The illustration starts, according to Amazon Video, 20 seconds into the episode, when Wayne Scott(Russell B. McKenzie) is talking to Sheriff Delahoussaye(Kirk Bovill) about contractor Henry Retzing(Sam Anderson). Here is the quote:

Wayne Scott(to Sheriff Delahoussaye): ‘Don’t do this, please. Not in front of my family.’

Sheriff Delahoussaye: ‘The bank sold off the note. This isn’t your house anymore.’

Wayne Scott: ‘Sold it off? To who?’ (the Sheriff motions towards Henry Retzing) My contractor? I hired them to fix my house, and they stole it from me?’

Sheriff Delahoussaye: (shrugs his shoulders) ‘Sorry.’

Henry Retzing: ‘Wish it hadn’t come to this, son.’

Well anyway, the illustration is similar to the refurbished quote from movie ‘Pacific Heights’. Since the sheriff was there, he witnessed the assault, and arrested Wayne Scott.

So, talking to the kids, teenagers, and adults, when you present anger to the instigator that improperly imposed an instigation for you to experience, it’s very likely in my opinion that the response you will get from that instigator will not be reasonably reciprocated and requited. Instead, that response will probably cause you to be somewhat perplexed, confounded, and bewildered. The examples from the ‘Plot summary’ of movie ‘Pacific Heights’ and tv show ‘Leverage’ demonstrate that a person’s use of anger may be not be reciprocated and requited by an instigator, and may even be used against them. Now, as for the ‘perplexed, confounded, and bewildered’ reaction, you can go to the quote that Henry Retzing gave to Sheriff Delahoussaye:

Wayne Scott: ‘My contractor? I hired them to fix my house, and they stole it from me?’

Of course, in that illustration, soon after saying that, Wayne Scott assaulted contractor Henry Retzing and was arrested. Now, in your situation, said to kids, teenagers, and adults, what an instigator may do to your expectations of anger is cause you to be somewhat perplexed, confounded, and bewildered, without a fight actually occurring. So, in that context without the fighting, just use that ‘Leverage’ scene but with the fighting part removed. To help you more tenably sense being perplexed, confounded, and bewildered, I recommend refurbished for advice that you use episode ‘Planet of the Dead’ from sci-fi tv show ‘Doctor Who(2009)’. If you have Amazon Prime, the episode is available streaming from Amazon.com without additional payment. Just search for phrase ‘david tennant specials’ in web site www.amazon.com, and one of the selections should be ‘Doctor Who: The David Tennant Specials’. Select that, then play episode ‘Planet of the Dead’. The illustration recommended to be seen starts 33 minutes and 58 seconds into the episode, The Doctor(David Tennant) is talking to Christina(Michelle Ryan). Here is the quote:

The Doctor: ‘Because they need to be? No, that’s bonkers.’

So, in that scene, the Doctor was somewhat perplexed, confounded, and bewildered, indicated by phrase ‘Because they need to be?’ Just refurbish that scene for your use.

That ‘Because they need to be?’ is not all the advice I am offering. Idea ‘Angry’ is introduced to you first to help you have some sort of contemplation circulation for this advice. I am now going to start giving you the rest of this advice, which is designed to incrementally help you. In other words, I have another ‘Iron Man’ suit, not just idea ‘Angry’ to offer you.

[8/18/2018: I forgot to mention that you can also use the word ‘Anger’ instead of ‘Angry’.]

[8/18/2018: I also forgot to mention that the anger that is not reciprocated and not requited may also occur later. In the ‘Leverage’ episode, Wayne Scott experienced the anger pretty much around the same time he was arrested. However, in your situation, since you have other expectations in your mind, for a specific expectation, you will 1st experience being perplexed, confounded, and bewilderment, but later after the incident you may experience anger that is being perplexed, confounded, and bewildered. Keep in mind that, since you may not be an instigator, you may not at 1st identify such a trick.]

All right. I sensed that the music video ‘You Deserve Better’ already ran out of gas. So, I’m recommending another music video. I don’t like it myself, not in the usual ‘watch to be entertained’ sense. However, what I do ‘like’ about it is it’s impression of initiative to ‘try’ to be entertaining for you to watch. I watched the entire music video for the 1st time just a few minutes ago. In the beginning of watching it, I didn’t like it, but I still gave it a chance. I noticed that, if you choose to pay attention to it, the performer’s efforts to sing and dance in an entertaining context to try to win you over. In my opinion, their efforts didn’t work. I still don’t like the music video. However, I do ‘like’ their efforts to try to be entertaining, and the experience during and towards the end of the music video is not as bad as watching the beginning of that music video. That is why I think this music video may be useful to you. The music video I recommend for you to watch is called ‘Don’t Go Breaking My Heart’ by American vocal group ‘Backstreet Boys’. Here’s a quote about the song from wikipedia.org:

‘ The song was released on May 17, 2018 as the lead single to their upcoming ninth album (eighth in the US). The single has so far peaked at number 63 on the Billboard Hot 100… ‘

To watch music video ‘Don’t Go Breaking My Heart’ for free, search for phrase ‘don’t go breaking my heart’ in www.youtube.com, and it should be one of the 1st selections offered, with over 27 million views. Here are some quotes from people from www.youtube.com for that music video:

‘ After all these years, they still have that 90’s dance and theme but mixed in with today’s beat and music and they have come up with an awesome song that makes you wanna dance and sing along, they still got it! ‘

‘ When i was 11 this was my group and now i’m 33 and they are still awesome! ‘

cialis in spain Lovemaking act requires both mental relaxation and physical activity. Problem is an viagra best price inseparable part of life. Just like cialis tadalafil 20mg other disease, prostatitis should be treated as soon as a man notices himself getting difficulty to maintain an erection till the completion of sexual act, even if he is leading a stressful life or has been a victim of certain other illnesses that can accelerate the hair damage in a gradual process to lead baldness. It’s said to be more powerful than any skin care product. cialis tadalafil online ‘ Very catchy for bsb man there still doing it even after 25 years gotta give them credit I mean even nsyc and 1 direction didnt last ‘

And here’s a quote from the lyrics of the song ‘Don’t Go Breaking My Heart’:

Baby, don’t go breaking my heart, breaking my heart
Baby, don’t go breaking my heart, breaking my heart
Cause that’s the only one I got
Cause that’s the only one I got

—

Not contribute to such a recognizing:

The1st illustration for this idea, of course, is refurbishedly toned down for the advice. It is at the end of thriller movie ‘Red Dragon(2002)’, starring Edward Norton as Will Graham, and Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The scene is available from Amazon.com, and according to Amazon Video, the scene starts 1 hour, 59 minutes, and 37 seconds into the movie. In that scene, while Will Graham is on his boat, he is reading a letter from Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The benefit of this scene is when Will Graham crumbles the letter in his hand, and then throws the letter into the ocean. To rent this streaming rental Standard Definition is about 3 dollars. To buy it Standard Definition is about 8 dollars. If you later decide to use more idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’, I recommend that you buy the movie. That will allow you to watch that scene many times without paying additional fees, since you own the streaming movie. Of course, renting and buying streaming movies are based on your circumstance. I am just recommending.

Here is a refurbished for advice explanation for the movie ‘Red Dragon’ from www.imdb.com:

‘ A retired F.B.I. Agent with psychological gifts is assigned to help track down “The Tooth Fairy”, a mysterious criminal. Aiding him is imprisoned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter. ‘

Of course, it’s a rated R thriller movie. I’m just clarifying how that movie is to be used for this advice.

The 2nd illustration is near the beginning of the movie ‘As Good As It Gets’, starring Jack Nicholson as Melvin Udall, and Helen Hunt as Carol Connelly. The scene starts, according to Amazon Video, 11 minutes and 48 seconds into the movie. It’s how the waitresses react to Melvin Udall’s presence and interjections. The most obvious moment starts 12 minutes into the movie, when Carol Connelly was talking to Mr. Udall. Here is the quote:

Carol Connelly: ‘This once, you can sit at someone else’s station.’

When Carol Connelly said that, all of the other waitresses looked at Miss Connelly at the same time with disapproval.

Carol Connelly: ‘Or you can wait your turn.’

Again, if you choose to commit more to the use of movie ‘As Good As It Gets’, I recommend that you buy the streaming movie instead of just renting it. As of now, renting the streaming movie Standard Definition is about 3 dollars, and buying the movie Standard Definition is about 10 dollars. Based on the movies I am aware of, movie ‘As Good As It Gets’ so far is the most popular movie that illustrates an instigator, if you think Mr. Udall can easily be refurbished to represent an instigator. And like I said before, renting or buying is dependant upon your circumstance. I am just recommending.

OK. I think I invented idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’ about 2 weeks ago, so this idea is also relatively new for me to use. I’ll try to explain it from the vantage point of those waitresses who responded to Mr. Udall from the movie ‘As Good As It Gets’: Years ago, when Mr. Udall used to eat at any table in that restaurant, he caused all of the other waitresses, except Carol Connelly, to experience some sort of adverse interjection that the waitresses interpreted as instigation. Those waitress, of course, did not choose to participate with such adverse interjections. However, when those waitresses are not working, and they are at their homes, let’s say organizing their houses, sometimes, for seemingly no reason at all, they would burst into some sort of contemplation induced anger about what Mr. Udall caused them to experience. They would then contemplationally say something insulting about Mr. Udall. That insult at their own homes soon was seen as uncharacteristic behavior, even though they just thought about it, and that action would eventually make those women justifyably hate and be angry at Mr. Udall for making them think in such a way. Later, the women would create a support group amongst themselves concerning Mr. Udall, which also led to them choosing to no longer serve Mr. Udall at work. Of course, the only woman who chooses to serve Mr. Udall food is Carol Connelly. I don’t know how that works, the relationship between Mr. Udall and Carol.

So, my point is that, it is my imagined discovery that when people experience certain adverse interjections from instigators, they experience such interjections using an objectivity that is actually available to them, which is not always the preferred objectivity defined by their intent. That is what happened to those waitresses. They used a preferred objectivity defined by their intent. So, when that preferred objectivity wasn’t enough, what happens is that the contemplation created may feel like an adverse sense of contributing to the adverse interjection experienced, and that adverse sense of contributing is also a part of how those waitresses recognize that instigator. Let’s look at that scene again from the movie ‘As Good As It Gets’, except this time let’s use another phrase from Mr. Udall. This scene starts 11 minutes and 55 seconds into the movie. Here is the quote:

Mr. Udall: ‘I’ve got Jews at my table.’

Now, notice that when Mr. Udall said that, that created an adverse reaction from the waitresses. It is my interpretation that their adverse reaction is an indicator that the waitresses recognize that his statement’s identity was adverse for them to experience. I highly recommend that you watch that scene for further understanding.

[I’m going to stop explaining now. The good news is that I started explaining idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’. That idea, in my opinion, could be a major idea for you in terms of potential effectiveness. An hour or so ago, I got a headache, I think it’s because of explaining idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’. I took something over the counter for it, but I still have something very minor from the headache. When I start explaining again next Saturday, it should be a lot easier for me to give you the rest of this advice, since the hardest part, in my opinion, has already been typed in. So, if you are there next Saturday, I’ll see you then.

8/24/2018

Welcome.

It is now 6:12 PM EST for me. Yesterday, I invented an idea called ‘Vulnerable not available’. In my opinion, this is yet again the best idea I have ever invented. Of course, this idea was created with certain ideas I have already introduced in this blog. I plan to explain this idea tomorrow, with the usual music video to go with it. I plan to start early tomorrow, since I want to finish explaining that idea tomorrow. So, that means I have to finish this idea today. I’ll type as much as I reasonably can today, proofread it, and close it today, to get ready to explain idea ‘Vulnerable not available’ tomorrow. This idea is still part of the ‘Begin’ idea I explained previously, and after I explain ‘Vulnerable not available’ tomorrow, I plan to finally explain idea ‘Not add’ afterwards. Idea ‘Vulnerable not add’ is just the ‘understanding bookmark’. I plan to add variations to it to allow you to more actively use such an idea, such as when you are at school or work.

Not contribute to such a recognizing:

I am now continuing the explanation for idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’: For this idea, I recommend that you watch the music video ‘Interjections!’ by ‘Schoolhouse Rock!’. ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ is explained in www.wikipedia.org, and according to wikipedia, ‘Interjections’ was 1st aired February 23, 1974. To watch music video ‘Interjections!’ for free, search for phrase ‘schoolhouse rock interjections’ in www.youtube.com, and it should be one of the 1st selections offered, with over 3.5 million views. Here is a quote from the lyrics:

Interjections (Hey!) show excitement (Yow!) or emotion (Ouch!).
They’re generally set apart from a sentence by an exclamation point,
Or by a comma when the feeling’s not as strong.

Now, this is when ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’ comes in: An instigator may improperly impose a contemplation commitment with an excessive sense of emphasis in order to evaluate a certain identity. The purpose of idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’ is to help you incrementally regulate contemplation emphasis. If you watched the music video ‘Interjections’, I believe that such a music video may help you identify and regulate contemplation emphasis. Here is an illustration example of a person who is not only able to regulate contemplation emphasis, but is also able to regulate how he/she presents a certain variety of emphasis. That person is character Nathan Ford(Timothy Hutton), and the illustration is in episode 5.11 ‘The Low Low Price Job’ from crime tv show ‘Leverage(2012)’. The episode is available to be purchased streaming from Amazon.com. Here is an explanation of that episode from www.wikipedia.org:

‘ Eliot takes a personal interest in the threat posed to a small town by a new mega-store. The crew tries a variety of approaches to foil the plans of an ambitious corporate representative and keep the store from opening. ‘

According to Amazon Video, the 1st illustration scene begins 4 minutes and 56 seconds into the episode. Nathan Ford, the leader of the team, is explaining to the others how to go about closing down a new mega-store. Here is the quote:

Nathan Ford: ‘Look, Value!More, what they earn in a year–it trumps the GDP of most 1st-World Nations.’

Sophie(Gina Bellman): ‘And they’re gonna have an army of executives.’

Nathan: ‘Exactly. So there’s no single weak spot to target. I mean, you can’t just take down an entire company.’

Eliot: ‘All right, then one store. This store.’

Nathan: ‘You’d…you’d have to…you’d have to nip it in the bud, though. I mean, you know, you’d have to close the store before it even opened. And when is it opening?’

Eliot: ‘Tomorrow.’

Nathan: ‘Tomorrow? Okay. Better move fast.’

I highly recommend you watch that scene for further understanding. Based on my refurbished for advice interpretation of that scene, Nathan is able to manage information processed using his expertise, information that many people may initially imagine as overwhelming and containing a lot of excessive contemplation emphasis. Based on his ability, he could see it that way, but he is not limited to just see it that way, like the way people would try to imagine such information. Notice that, when he explained to the rest of the team what Eliot wants to do, how to accomplish such a thing, he doesn’t fill their heads with excessive interjections. He gives them a proposed solution that all of them can listen to and reasonably interpret. Later in the episode, Nathan even ‘nutshells’ the 3 possible reasons how to close down that particular mega-store. That scene starts 22 minutes and 31 seconds into the episode. Here is the quote:

Eliot: ‘Listen, you said three stores have closed down–one for toxic land, the other for The Union. -What was the third?’

Nathan: ‘Just a string of bad luck, a bunch of little things that added up to taking down their profits.’

You can watch the entire episode, if you choose to. If you choose to watch it for this advice, just keep in mind that what you watch is refurbished with inaproprieities removed and for this advice. If you want to watch it for other reasons not related to this blog, that’s another thing. I’m just recommending if you want to watch that episode for this blog.

So, if you watch that ‘Leverage’ episode, it should be easy for you to imagine how Nathan Ford is able to easily manage certain excessive interjections of contemplation emphasis. However, it’s in a context based on his expertise, and most people in my opinion if they would try to, may instead at least at first experience certain excessive contemplation interjections. Using basic common sense, of course, Nathan does not present what he knows using excessive contemplation interjections. Instead, Nathan presents the team with reasonable explanations to interact with. The episode says it all, so to speak.

So, for example, when you experience a mild to moderate excessive contemplation interjection from an instigation that you already believe is out of context, and not relevant, you can ask yourself ‘Is this interjection improperly encouraging me to commit to a contributing of an excessive interjection identity?’ That is why I named the idea ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’. The name is also a diagnostic. When you experience an excessive interjection, you can contemplationally say to yourself ‘Not contribute to such a recognizing’, an that should help you not evaluate such an interjection just based on it’s impression of recommended use.

As a reminder, if you chose to use The Phonetic System, an idea that I recommended to you in Wishlist #1104, you can make associations with the ideas I have given you. So, when you finally have an idea that you really like, for example, you can make an association with all of the ideas learned from the beginning to where your new idea is. For example, you should be able to recall idea ‘Begin’, and all of the ideas after that leading to you new favorite idea. Let’s say you don’t have a favorite idea yet. Well, when you do finally have a favorite idea, you should be ready to associate your favorite idea to other ideas that you have chosen to associate your favorite idea with.

Not address stay:

Soon after inventing idea ‘Not contribute to a certain recognizing’, for a short moment, I experienced a sense of extra objectivity. That was when I invented idea ‘Not address stay’. That means I chose to not address certain characteristics of certain instigations that had an obvious adverse instability identity. If I believed that characteristic was out of context, and even the instigator who presented it would deny it was even presented to me, then I may choose to contemplationally ‘not address’ such a characteristic’s adverse sense of instability. The idea only worked for one thing that I had experienced, and I wasn’t able to use the idea again to create that preferred effect. However, even though it worked only once, so to speak, I believe that it helped me create idea ‘Vulnerable not available’, an idea I plan to type in tomorrow.

For you to use idea ‘Not address stable’, just contemplationally say ‘Not address stable’ to not address out of context and non relevant aspects of adverse instability.

It’s already 7:55 PM EST for me now, so I’m going to stop now, proofread it, and close it. So, if you’re there tomorrow, I’ll see you then.

Rated R language and viewer discretion for movie ‘The Wedding Ringer’. Rated R violence and viewer discretion for movie ‘Pacific Heights’. Rated TV-PG violence and viewer discretion for tv show ‘Leverage’. Rated TV-PG violence and viewer discretion for sci-fi tv show ‘Doctor Who(2005+)’. Rated R violence and viewer discretion for movie ‘Red Dragon’. Rated PG-13 violence and viewer discretion for movie ‘As Good As It Gets’. Use only refurbished for advice references recommended. Throw away rest of episode, tv show, and movie. [Use mental bookmarks ‘Angry’, ‘Not contribute to a certain recognizing’, and ‘Not address stay’ for reference, allocation, and prevention when needed.