4/6/2019
Salutations.
It is now 8:04 AM EST for me. I plan to proofread Wishlist #1166 later. I just want to make sure I have enough time to finish this list, Wishlist #1167. Less than an hour ago, I found the music video for this list, but because it’s form is not convenient enough to just give you, for example, like the previous music video, ‘Orange Trees’ by Marina, I have to give you a story for it. So, here it is: It is my belief that more and more kids are learning to appreciate certain aspects of other cultures without needing to know the language associated with that culture. For example, I think one very popular example from upper class grammar schools is when a kid who only speaks French visits such grammar schools that teach French. It is my belief that the grammar school students that are learning French are very open to interacting with kids from France who are either just visiting America, or their parents plan to stay in America for several or more years. The point of this story is that such kids are not obligated to learn English, and only speak French, as they interact with the French learning American students. Let’s say that, after 2 years, many of the French kids develop an appreciation with American lifestyle, and they still haven’t learned English!
Of course, you can change the formula. It doesn’t have to be just kids from France learning American culture and not needing to learn English. And that is where the music video I’ve found comes in. I looked at the lyrics, and the lyrics indicate that it’s another relationship music video. However, if you choose to watch the music video, it feels like the music video is introducing you to another culture, and you may imagine that a child that does not speak that culture’s primary language has watched it, and is learning to appreciate it’s culture without needing to learn it’s primary language. One example, and not the only example, let’s say that the kid is from China or Africa, and does not need to learn the primary language introduced by that music video. If you choose to watch the music video, 3 minutes and 3 seconds into the music video, you even see kids playing soccer! And so, the music video is from song ‘Wild’ by Jonas Blue. www.wikipedia.org doesn’t say much anything I can find about the music video. It talks about the album it came from called ‘Blue’, and that the song ‘Wild’ was released Feb 27, 2019, less than 2 months ago. Therefore, I looked in www.google.com, and found an article about the music video ‘Wild’ in web site www.ventsmagazine.com. Here’s a quote:
‘ Following the recent release of his video for “Desperate” featuring Nina Nesbitt, unstoppable hit-maker Jonas Blue has now unveiled the sun-soaked video for the release of his fresh anthem“Wild.”…
Taken from his debut album Blue, the melodic hit was directed by creative mastermind Daniel Carberry and sees Jonas embrace Latin American culture alongside Puerto Rican rapper Jhay Cortez, (best known for his J.Balvin collaboration “Estan Pa Mi”), Argentine actress and singerTINI, and UK songwriter Chelcee Grimes (responsible for several huge hits from the likes of Dua Lipa, Kylie Minogue and Olly Murs). “Wild” sees all four artists unite during the video amid a vibrant flurry of bold colors on a warm afternoon in the peak of summer. ‘
I found music video ‘Wild’ in www.youtube.com by visiting a publisher’s web site called ‘#RedMusic’. In that web site, I selected ‘New Songs 2019: Best New Hits Playlist’. The music video was published the same day the song was released, Feb 27, 2019, and it has over 21 million views! As of now, there are over 11 thousand comments. Here is a quote from one of those comments:
‘ I don’t understand Spanish but I love Spanish songs jonas blue never disappointed ‘
I watched the entire music video for the 1st time earlier today. In my opinion, it has a catchy tune, vibrant colors in the music video, and the people dancing have an obvious, interjectingly noticable dance style that compliments the song.
Unguarded innocence:
All right. Here we go! I invented an idea yesterday called ‘Define take in’ that could be in my opinion the best idea I have ever invented, based on how I imagined the general public would use it. But before I explain it, I want to explain 2 ideas to prepare you for it, idea ‘Unguarded innocence’ and ‘Sustain’. So, I’ll start with ‘Unguarded innocence’. I created that idea using a scene from the movie ‘Justice League(2017)’, starring Ben Affleck as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman/Diana. The scene, according to Amazon Video, starts 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 48 seconds into the movie, Wonder Woman and Batman/Bruce Wayne are having a conversation. Here is the quote:
Wonder Woman/Diana: ‘At some point, even you have to learn to move on.’
Batman/Bruce Wayne: ‘Steve Trevor tell you that?’
Wonder Woman/Diana: (Wonder Woman/Diana seemingly uncontrollably pushes Batman/Bruce Wayne back, causing his body to his the crates behind him.)
I believe that many Americans believe that if certain notions and experiences are innocent, that it’s innocence is an acceptable indicator that such notions and experiences will be protected. And in that ‘Justice League’ scene, Batman/Bruce Wayne attacked one of those notions in Wonder Woman/Diana’s mind, causing her to seemingly reflexively push Batman/Bruce Wayne back, causing his body to hit the crates behind him. I wanted you to have an illustration example of how a person may react when one of those notions and experiences that are innocent are adversely confronted. And this is the quote I recommend that you contemplationally use when referencing that scene:
Batman/Bruce Wayne: ‘Steve Trevor tell you that?’
It is my belief that girls, teenage girls, and women in general should have no problem contemplationally using that phrase. However, it may be a problem for the boys to men. Keep in mind that, when contemplationally using such a phrase, it’s helping you identify that a certain experienced instigation may be accessing an unguarded innocent notion and/or experience that you have. I am going to talk about idea ‘Unguarded innocence’ more after I introduce you to idea ‘Define take in’. To help prepare you, the use of idea ‘Unguarded innocence’ will obviously change, based on the use of idea ‘Define take in’. [4/17/2019: For the boys to men, if you choose to contemplationally say the phrase ‘Steve Trevor tell you that?’, just use it as a reminder of the understanding that you have for idea ‘Unguarded innocence’. The girls, teenage girls, and women will probably use it more directly, since it was originally said to a woman, but when you use it, you’re just checking, for example, if your unguarded innocence is being exploited. You’re not using it in a literal, direct sense. 4/17/2019]
[I’m going to stop now and get some take out food. I’ll start again in 2 hours. It is now 9:41 AM for me.
[It is now 10:04 AM. I just recently found out that the restaurant I want to buy food from won’t start serving lunch, not until 11:00 AM. So, I’ll just keep typing until then.
Sustain:
According to www.dictionary.com, ‘sustain’ means ‘to keep or keep going, as an action or process, and the example is ‘to sustain a conversation’. Basically, an instigator may improperly impose an instigation upon you, knowing that you will likely have some sort of sustained experience with such an instigation. I wanted to introduce to you idea ‘Sustain’ before I begin explaining idea ‘Define take in’, and again, this idea will change in use after I introduce to you idea ‘Define take in’, if you choose to learn in such a manner.
Define take in: Define sink in:
Idea ‘Define take in’ was created primarily by using a scene in episode 8.6 ‘The Caretaker’ from sci-fi tv show ‘Doctor Who(2014)’. I already quoted that scene in Wishlist #1159, and so, I’ll just give you a copy of that:
‘ Anyway, the 2nd part of the reference from ‘The Caretaker’ episode, according to Amazon Video, starts 10 minutes and 54 seconds into the episode, Adrian and Danny Pink(Samuel Anderson) are talking to The Doctor. Here is the quote:
Adrian: ‘Of course, Danny Pink here is your man. Five years military experience, Sergeant, here and Afghan, so electrics, boilers. If you need a hand give him a shout.’
Danny Pink: ‘I’ve helped atif with a couple of things, yes.’
The Doctor: ‘I’m sure I won’t be needing you, Sergeant, fully qualified. You best get back to your PE Class.’
Danny Pink: ‘I teach maths.’
The Doctor: ‘Do you? What? In emergencies?’
Danny Pink: ‘No, I’m a maths teacher.’
Adrian: ‘Yeah, he’s a maths teacher. Muhammed, put that down!’
The Doctor: ‘How does that work? What if the kids have questions?’
Danny Pink: ‘About what?’
The Doctor: ‘Maths?’
Danny Pink: ‘I answer them. I’m a maths teacher.’
The Doctor: ‘But he said you were a soldier.’
Danny Pink: ‘Yeah, I was a soldier, now I’m a maths teacher.’
The Doctor: ‘But what about all the PE.?’
Danny Pink: ‘I don’t teach PE. I’m not a PE. teacher.’
The Doctor: ‘Sorry, that seems very unlikely.’
Clara: (clears throat) ‘Excuse me, Mr. Pink, I think class 9m4 are waiting.’
The Doctor: ‘Yes, you’d better run along, Sergeant. That ball isn’t gonna kick itself, is it?’
Danny Pink: ‘I’m not a PE. teacher, I’m a maths teacher.’
The Doctor: ‘Nope, sorry. No, I can’t retain that. I’ve tried, it’s just not going in.’ ‘
So, the focus from that scene is when The Doctor said to Danny Pink quote:
The Doctor: ‘Nope, sorry. No, I can’t retain that. I’ve tried, it’s just not going in.’
More specifically:
The Doctor: ‘..it’s just not going in.’
When you contemplationally recall The Doctor say phrase ‘I’ve tried, it’s just not going in.’, you look at the scene in the episode, and you refurbish that scene. It’s similar, you just imagine The Doctor using both his hands as he motions to his face, emphasizing that ‘it’s just not going in. In the refurbished use, he’s just using his hands. In the actual episode, his right hand was holding a screwdriver. So, when you imagine that, he’s just using his hands.
‘ So, here’s an imagined explanation as to how idea ‘Define take in’ was created: There is this woman in America who is single, available to be in a relationship with, and very attractive, and she has invented a technique to cope with instigation over the years. However, there are experiences with certain instigations that she does not have preferred results with. For example, she would experience a certain instigation that has a defining identity, an identity that does not work on her technique. Using ‘The Caretaker’ scene, it’s like when The Doctor said quote:
‘It’s just not going in.’
The identity of something about the experience of that instigation is ‘just not going in’. For another illustration refurbished for advice, you may look for Orangina soft drink commercials where the women in the commercials would say quote ‘I can’t taste the juice!’ I checked www.youtube.com, and I only found one such commercial. Search for phrase ‘orangina commercial 1986’, and one of the 1st selections in www.youtube.com has over 17 thousand views, and it’s publisher is ‘mycommercials’. Here’s a quote from the commercial, a lady is complaining about her unsatisfied soft drink experience:
Lady in commercial: ‘I came into this with so many expectations. No one wanted it to work more than I did, but it’s just no use. I can’t taste the juice! I can’t taste the juice!’ ‘
So, now, you have 2 illustrations to work with, the Doctor Who ‘Caretaker’ illustration, which is the main one, and the ‘Orangina commercial’ one, the lady complaining that she is not able to ‘taste the juice’ from her soft drink experience. Of course, you refurbish the ‘Orangina commercial’ for this advice.
[All right. I can now get the food. I’m going to go out and buy the food, and in 2 hours, I’ll continue this advice. If you are there, I’ll see you then.
It is now 1:32 PM for me. Before I continue to explain idea ‘Define take in’, here’s another illustration. This illustration is in episode 11.4 ‘Arachnids in the UK’ from sci-fi tv show ‘Doctor Who(2018)’. It is available as a streaming purchase from Amazon.com for about 2 dollars Standard Definition, and in that scene, Jack Robertson(Chris Noth) is having a conversation with Najia Khan(Shobna Gulati) and her daughter, Yasmin Khan(Mandip Gill). That scene starts, according to Amazon Video, 17 minutes and 57 seconds into the episode. Here is the quote:
Jack Robertson: ‘Well, I really don’t care, because if I hadn’t fired you then, I would have fired you 10 minutes ago when I saw the rooms. Disgraceful!’
You must shop for viagra cheap make sure to get over this problem of erectile dysfunction. Before, it is too late; browse for source cialis samples the problem should urgently be taken care of. Then can prostatitis be radically cured with rhubarb fumigation cialis in australia therapy? Dr. One needs to take 1pill in one day that is one particular pill is sufficient enough for him so need to repeat levitra properien deeprootsmag.org the dose.Najia Khan: ‘What rooms. I don’t understand.’
Jack Robertson: ‘I’m sure you don’t understand. Would you like to see how good your mother really isn’t?’
So, the focus in the ‘Arachnids in the UK’ scene is when Jack Robertson said quote:
‘Would you like to see how good your mother really isn’t?’
More specifically, it’s when Jack Robertson said the word quote:
‘…isn’t?’
I recommend that you look at when Jack Robertson said the word ‘isn’t?’ in the episode, and see if you can recall his presentation of teeth when you think of the word ‘isn’t?’. That scene starts 18 minutes and 8 seconds into the episode.
So, when you are using idea ‘Define take in’, or you may call it ‘Define sink in’, you are experiencing something about the instigation that has a defining identity that your current technique to cope? with instigations is not able to eventually create in a short period of time a preferred perspective. In other words, like The Doctor said, it’s not going in. You may also say it’s not taking it in, or it’s not sinking in. That experience can also be described as you not being able to sense your preferred perspective. The solution identified by idea ‘Define take in’ is to be able to sense that experience, that your technique is not able to ‘take it in’, but not use it. Since I recently invented idea ‘Define take in’ this past Wednesday, April 3, 2019, just a few days ago, I only have a few days worth of experience to offer you. Here’s the logical deduction I have made this past Wednesday about the idea: Suppose while you are at school or at work, there is a certain instigator that is making it very difficult for your technique to work on his/her instigations. Let’s say you are an adult, and you have been experiencing mild to moderate instigation for several years, and what would happen in the past, if your ideas don’t work, of course you would make due without, and eventually make other ideas to compensate. Now, what I discovered recently is that, during those several years, what you already experienced many times is that feeling that the instigation did not sink in. So, what you can do now, when the instigation has a defining identity for you usual ideas to not work, you allocate that specific feeling, that it does not sink in, by not using it as an active contemplation. In other words, you feel it, but you don’t become it. And when that happens, for this one example, you can contemplationally say ‘Define take in’ to help the idea work. There are other variations I want to explain today for idea ‘Define not work’, such as ‘Mistake participate’, ‘Effort take in’, ‘Repeat take in’, ‘Tolerate take in’, and ‘Expire take in’.
Mistake participate:
The idea ‘Mistake participate’ is a separate upgrade for idea ‘Participate’ that I had offered you in Wishlist #1145, on 11/3/2018. Here is a quote:
‘ Participate:
How is it a mistake if I did not agree to participate?:
Idea ‘Participate’ is basically an assurance idea, to help you clarify that you did not choose to commit to a certain interjection, that you did not choose to participate. So therefore, another idea created for idea ‘Participate’, it’s logic, can be identified by the question ‘How is it a mistake if I did not agree to participate?’ One of the major goals of these ideas is to help you more tenably experience unavoidable instigation. [11/8/2018: I realized recently that my use of the phrase ‘even though’ 4 times may seem mildly intimidating. The effect was unintentional, and I apologize for it. I believe that the cause of it was from a new idea I invented several weeks ago called ‘Serious’. It’s designed to allow you to convey meaning better. According to the idea, certain experienced instigations may have inhibited somewhat your ability to convey certain meanings. I plan to explain 2 ideas by this coming Saturday, the 2nd idea is planned to be idea ‘Serious’. 11/8/2018] So, the idea is that certain mild to moderate interjections caused by the instigations you may be experiencing, even though you did not agree to participate, even though such interjections are also out of context and not relevant, even though such interjections if presented by those with authority in your school or work will easily be ruled as inappropriate, even though such instigations that you may already have experienced fit such criteria, you STILL experience contemplations that are unavoidable by you to experience. So, what I recommend with your ‘cone’ idea, is to identify such contemplations, such experiences, using the question ‘How is it a mistake if I did not agree to participate?’ If you did not agree to participate with such instigation induced interjections, then how is it a mistake on your part? After all, you did not agree to participate with it, and you certainly were not prepared for it. If you brought such interjections to the attention of your teacher or boss, he or she may tell you that you are not obligated to commit to such an interjection impression. For example, if it was something as absurdly obvious as inappropriate interjections of surprise, your teacher or boss may tell you that interjections focusing on adversely and inappropriately surprising you are not used as primary acceptable conversation interaction at school or at work. You don’t have to commit to it.
For the sake of illustrating the phrase ‘How is it a mistake if I did not agree to participate?’, I refurbished a virtual logo from the animated tv show ‘Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex(2002-2003)’. One of the animated characters in the tv show called ‘The Laughing Man’ created it. Here is a description of ‘The Laughing Man’ from wikipedia.org:
‘ He is an expert hacker, able to hide his physical presence by editing himself out of video feeds and cybernetic eyes, concealing his identity by superimposing an animated logo over his face, and hijacking cybernetic brains altogether, all in real-time. ‘
I’m no expert at interpreting the tv show ‘Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex’, like the people who post about it in the internet seem to be. I can still give you an explanation of what the logo is and does. If you watch something on tv or some sort of real-time video feed, the expert hacker called ‘The Laughing Man’ can cover a person’s face watched real-time from a tv screen, for example, with what looks like to be a computer generated logo. The episodes are available streaming from Amazon.com. One of the episodes have 2 of the main characters explaining the words on the logo. You don’t have to buy that episode. I’m just using it as a reference. In episode 1.20 ‘Re-View’, Major Motoko(usually just called ‘Major’) is talking to Togusa. The scene starts 6 minutes and 33 seconds into the episode. Here is the quote:
Togusa: ‘Major, are you familiar with the wording around ‘The Laughing Man’ logo and the meaning of it?’
Major: ‘Yeah, “I thought what I’d do was I’d become one of those deaf mutes.” I understand that’s a quote from Chapter 25 of ‘Catcher in the Rye’.
The episode I recommend that you purchase so that you can see what the logo looks like is in episode 1.9 ‘Chat! Chat! Chat!’ from the tv show ‘Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex(2005)’. In that episode, it looks like some people in a virtual setting are talking about ‘The Laughing Man’. One of those people, a man, is intentionally putting ‘The Laughing Man’ logo over his face. That scene starts, according to Amazon Video, 2 minutes and 58 seconds into the episode. Here is the quote:
Man1: ‘Speaking of stupid, that get-up of yours is a new low in lameness.’
Man2(the one using ‘The Laughing Man’ logo on his face): ‘If you don’t like it, why don’t you suggest a different topic of discussion, then?’ (The man then removes that logo from his face, and presents his original face image.)
It’s during that scene where you can get a close-up look at what ‘The Laughing Man’ logo looks like. It’s the best one I am aware of in the show that gives you the most detail. When you look at that logo from that ‘Chat!’ episode, you can see the words moving in a counter clockwise direction around a laughing man’s face wearing a cap. If you choose to buy that episode, I think it’s about 2 dollars Standard Definition. Anyway, what I recommend is that you simply remove the original wording around ‘The Laughing Man’ logo and replace it with the words ‘How is it a mistake if I did not agree to participate?’ You don’t have to see the words clearly when you imagine that logo just hovering where you want to see it. You just imagine it sometimes reasonably, to help you use the idea ‘How is it a mistake if I did not agree to participate?’. And when you conceptualize it, you don’t even have to imagine it clearly. ‘
In this case, idea ‘Mistake participate’ is now used as a variation for idea ‘Define take in’. So, when you experience an instigation that your preferred perspective cannot take in, you may identify such an experience as not being a mistake, since you did not agree to participate. The experience may be interpreted as a puzzle that an instigation or inadvertency caused you to sense, but since you did not agree to participate with such a puzzle, you did not make any mistakes associated with that puzzle. And this is when I introduce to you again idea ‘Unguarded innocence’. I recommend you use phrase ‘Steve Trevor tell you that?’, to see if the instigation is trying to adversely affect your unguarded sense of innocence. For example, if an instigator imposes a false accusation upon you, you may allow yourself to experience it as something that has certain characteristics that does not sink in, but you are not using that feeling as an active contemplation. Also, you are contemplationally saying to yourself that it is not a mistake, since you did not agree to participate interacting with such a false accusation notion.
Here’s another way of using idea ‘Mistake participate’. 1st, here’s a quote from idea ‘Penalty’ made in Wishlist #1123:
‘ Penalty:
It is now 3:35 PM EST for me. I am going to explain 2 words individually: ‘Penalty’ and ‘Already’. Then, I plan to explain a technique to see if it will work for you. After I do all 3, I’ll let you know what I’ll do next. So, for now, I’m explaining idea ‘Penalty’, starting with 2 illustrations. The 1st illustration is from episode 1.6 ’12 Hours’ from action tv show ‘Transporter: The Series(2012)’. According to Amazon Video, the scene starts 46 minutes and 37 seconds into the episode, Giles(Josh Blacker) is talking to Frank Martin(Chris Vance) who Giles knows is not Dieter Hausmann(Charly Hubner). The illustration is refurbished for advice. Here is the quote:
Giles: ‘You’re not such a bad person after all, Dieter.’
Dieter: ‘Thanks.’
Giles: (Giles then turns around and looks at the man who claimed not to be Dieter.)
Dieter: (After Dieter realized that he just accidentally admitted? that he lied to Giles about his identity, his eyes rolls up.)
The scene used for this idea is when Giles caused Dieter to roll his eyes up.
So, starting with the ‘Transporter’ illustration, when Giles said ‘You’re not such a bad person after all, Dieter.’ , Giles already knew that Frank is only pretending to be Dieter. Giles said that to cause Dieter to say something, a something that would prove to Dieter that he lied about not being Dieter. And that is what happened. When Giles said ‘You’re not such a bad person after all, Dieter.’ , that caused the real Dieter to say ‘Thanks.’ , and by saying that, Dieter accidentally revealed to Giles that he is the real Dieter, and that he has been telling lies to him. That is when Giles turned around and looked at Dieter. And when Giles turned around and looked at Dieter, Dieter experienced a sense of penalty coming from himself. And since that sense of penalty was coming from himself, Dieter reacted to that sense of penalty, which caused Dieter to roll his eyes up. So, even though Giles obviously caused Dieter to experience that sense of penalty, that sense of penalty still came from Dieter himself. ‘
The 2nd illustration is in episode 9.24 ‘Lost Our Lisa’ from animated tv show ‘The Simpsons(1998)’. The episode is available as a streaming purchase from Amazon.com, and according to Amazon.com, that scene starts 12 minutes and 39 seconds into the episode. Lisa is trying to find her way home, and she is asking someone for directions. Here is the quote:
Lisa: ‘Oh. I didn’t know Springfield had a Russian district.’
Lisa: (talking to someone) ‘Excuse me. Can you tell me how to get to the museum?’
Man: ‘My pleasure. It’s six blocks that way.’
Lisa runs away believing she was threatened by that man.
Starting with the 1st illustration, episode 1.5 ’12 Hours’ from tv show ‘The Transporter(2012)’, the episode is available as a streaming purchase from Amazon.com for about 2 dollars Standard Definition, and according to Amazon Video, that scene starts near end of episode, 46 minutes and 38 seconds into the episode, when Giles(Josh Blacker) is talking to Frank Martin(Chris Vance) while Dieter Hausmann(Charly Hubner) was listening. Here is the quote:
Giles: ‘You’re not such a bad person after all, Dieter.’
Dieter: ‘Thanks.’
Giles: (Looking at the actual Dieter in a surprised context, causing Dieter to roll his eyes up.)
The idea for the ‘Transporter’ illustration is to help you identify that certain past instigations that still bother you are attacking/bothering your sense of unguarded innocence, even though the mistake from such instigations is clearly identified to not be you by the image and/or experience that still bothers you. So, if you choose to, contemplationally say phrase:
‘Steve Trevor tell you that?’
Now, recall a minor instigation that still bothers you. Let’s say the identity of such an instigation clearly indicates to you that it’s not your mistake. Certain mild to moderate instigations tend to impose a false accusation of mistake upon you, even though it’s clearly the mistake of the instigator. Now, of course you are innocent, but it’s an unguarded sense of innocence. Keep in mind that such an instigation still bothers you somewhat. Now, what I am going to recommend is that you affirm that you are innocent. Recall that instigation, and contemplationally say ‘I did not make a mistake, since I did not participate.’ The idea is that the instigation still bothers you, so therefore I think you should consider the possibility that the instigator wanted you to give such an experience more of an active contemplation, even though you are clearly innocent. So, let’s logically unravel that knot. Let’s say that bothersome instigation happened several years ago. That means you only experienced that past instigation once several years ago. So, even though you never experienced it again, the instigator may have wanted you to re-live that experience from time to time. Since you only experienced it once, when you recall the instigation again, you can contemplationally think to yourself that you are not making such a mistake, since you did not agree to participate. That means that, since you only experienced it once, let’s say starting 1 day after that incident for clarity, you no longer participated with such a bothersome event. That means that, for clarification, you contemplationally say ‘I did not make a mistake, since/because I did not participate.’ Yes, of course, the instigator made the mistake, but now, with the help of idea ‘Define take in’, you may sense better that your unguarded sense of innocence is not reaffirmed, that you did not make such a mistake, since you are not even participating with such an experience. I recommend that you try this idea on other mild to moderate instigations that still bother you. And of course, the short version is to contemplationally say ‘Mistake participate’.
Now, when using that scene from ‘Lost Our Lisa’, you’re clarifying to yourself that you are not interacting with a certain language. When the man said to Lisa quote:
‘My pleasure. It’s six blocks that way.’
Lisa interpreted that language use as a threat. That is why she ran away. So, what you do is use your chosen sense of reasonable concern as a reference point to determine reasonable language response. For example, when you are at school or at work, you have a reasonable sense of concern, and you have concerns that may be adversely affected by instigation. So, instead of feeling threatened like Lisa did, you can instead reference that reasonable sense of concern, give that priority, so that you can allocate somewhat that adversely affected sense of concern. That way, you can still respond more reasonably, and choose not to interact with certain aspects of the adversely affected concern. For example, let’s say an instigator causes you to experience such a language of concern. If you are not participating with such an interaction, you can contemplationally say ‘I did not make a mistake, since I did not participate.’
Effort take in:
Idea ‘Effort take in’ identifies an impression of contemplation effort to resolve that is usually excessive, and the instigator wants you to use such an effort to resolve in order to resolve such an experience. You may identify the effort itself as something that does not normally sink in to your usual use of technique, but you choose to not use, not interact with such an effort.
Repeat take in:
I think I invented idea ‘Repeat take in’ this past Thursday, April 4, 2019, just 2 days ago. Basically, an instigator may repeat a previous instigation, such as using a similar composure agitation, but give the instigation a seemingly different identity. Keep in mind that you did not agree to participate with the instigation in the 1st place. Therefore, the instigation is based on your reasonable sense of resourcefulness, not a sense of resourcefulness that is not available to you. Although I did not think of this before, I may have created idea ‘Repeat take in’ with the help of the movie ‘Back to the Future(1985)’, starring James Tolkan as Mr. Strickland. If memory serves, Mr. Strickland complains a lot. So, when Marty(Michael J. Fox) went back in time, I remember Marty saying quote: ‘Did Strickland ever have hair?’ Also, even in the past, Mr. Strickland maintains the identity about complaining about certain things, things that also involves certain composure agitations that he also experienced in Marty’s present timeline. So, just contemplationally say ‘Repeat take in’ to check if a certain instigation you may be experiencing is trying to repeat a certain instigation you already experienced in the past, by the same person 1st, or by other people.
Tolerate take in:
I invented idea ‘Tolerate take in’ based on idea ‘Tolerate include’ from Wishlist #1166. An instigator may cause you to feel a sense of tolerance that your normal use of technique may not be able to take in/sink in, and so you choose not to use it.
[It’s now 4:08 PM for me, and I’ll stop explaining. I plan to finish this list either this coming Friday, or next Saturday. I also plan to proofread Wishlist #1166 and this list by then. If past performance is any indication, I’ll probably make more ideas by then, and I may change my mind and type that new idea instead of proofreading.(I’m telling that to you in advance so that, in case I change my mind again, you may not have to consider the fact? that I lied to you (again). I did not say that to ‘spook’ anyone. I thought you may benefit from knowing that. I try to learn from my mistakes. So, if you are there this coming Friday or next Saturday, I at least plan to see you then. [4/17/2019: To clarify, the statement ‘…that I lied to you (again) is in reference to me changing my mind. For example, I would say that I plan to do one thing near the end of the list, and in the next list, I may have changed my mind, and I am now doing another thing. In that context, you may choose to say that I lied to you again. Like I said before, I try to learn from my mistakes. 4/17/2019]
4/17/2019
PG-13 violence and viewer discretion for movie ‘Justice League’. TV-PG violence and viewer discretion for sci-fi tv show ‘Doctor Who(2005+)’. TV-MA sci-fi violence and viewer discretion for animated tv show ‘Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex(2002-2003)’. TV-14 violence and viewer discretion from tv show ‘Transporter: The Series’. TV-PG violence and viewer discretion from animated tv show ‘The Simpsons’. PG sci-fi violence and viewer discretion from movie ‘Back to the Future’. Use only refurbished for advice references recommended. Throw away rest of episode, series, and movie. [Use mental bookmarks ‘Unguarded innocence’, ‘Sustain’, ‘Define take in’, ‘Define sink in’, ‘I did not make a mistake, since/because I did not participate.’, ‘Mistake participate’, ‘Effort take in’, ‘Repeat take in’, and ‘Tolerate take in’ for reference, allocation, and prevention when needed.