posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:40 AM
No thing or person can be. You can tell what is yet and what is not yet. The only way something can be is if you can go outside eternity for a
quick witness. No point into eternity can you see anything or anyone actually be.
So lo, "be" is a false implication. The word itself is not false, but it's implication is false. I am yet. We are yet. Yes, "am" and "are"
imply "be" also.
The dictionary should have the words "beyet" and "beless" for a true implication instead of a false implication. Yes, the words "amyet" and
"amless" and plus "areyet" and "areless", concerning "be" is what the dictionary should modernly obtain.
Everything which was always is still yet and not yet complete. When you look at a closet, you cant say it be there since you don't know yet if it'll
get destroyed a minute away from the now you only can know.
The words "become" and "becoming" have a true implication concerning potential in a sense the implication tells whatever or whoever it is
it is somewhat still yet that obviously wasnt always, with no implication it can stay present always either.
So if someone asks you who you are, tell 'em you are yet and/or becoming.
If someone gets a tude to ask you: "And just who do you think you are?" Rebuke their whole question, while keeping your cool, by saying, "I am yet,
I tell you. So imply a better, true question without a tude if you want a better, true answer."
And "belong"? Same applies since it is a false implication. Nothing can belong. So nothing can belong your's. Am yet I even lieing?! Something can
'beyetlong' or 'yet belong' or 'belongyet' your's. We may mordernize the true implication with modernizing words without waiting for a
dictionary's officializing. But the lame and unhip snarl when they distantly see mordernization occuring so.
And "is" implicates present distant be. "a remote be". And if you read the bible, know, the key of the bottomless pit is the 'false
implication' ('be'). And know, you can not have a name. Names are yet and names never get implicated the same way with any person. So actually
nameless is anyone or anything. You have a 'yetname' or a 'nameyet'. Or! A naming is anyone or anything. Since, know, the implication with
singling for any person is always fresh and new.
Any person have any 2 cent for sharing concerning the false implicated "be"?
[edit on 26-10-2008 by Mabus]