Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do Words Hurt?

page: 27
30
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


In STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND . . .

well trained official judges

could not say as they drove by a house that they saw a white house.

They could say that they saw a house, white on two sides. They could not INFER that the house was white on the other sides.

It is NOT an inference to assert that WORDS are resident IN THE BRAIN.

The brain imaging has gotten sophisticated enough that we can now document it as real.

It is NOT an inference to assert that children reared in a context in which they

repeatedly, relentlessly hear dozens of times a day

VERY DELIBERATELY DESTRUCTIVE WORDS--i.e. small units of mutually understood meaning hurled from the speaker into the child's ears and brain

. . . that such children WILL grow up with:

1. physiological brain damage in the brain areas handling emotional expression and management and interpretation, interactions in RELATIONSHIPS.

2. devastated family, friend, romance, work relationships over the whole lifespan--often even WITH lots of therapy.

3. THOSE ARE REAL, TANGIBLE, IMPACTFUL, REAL OBSERVATIONS, REALITIES, PAINS, DESTRUCTION DISASTERS. They are not inferred. They are demonstrably real. And they are DISPLAYED in millions of households around the world. We don't have to infer that they are hiding in the closet. They are DISPLAYED around the world in thousands of ways
. . .

4. Just as they are DISPLAYED on threads such as this endlessly on ATS.

.

edit on 7/12/2013 by BO XIAN because: tags




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





WHEN the OP makes a major hook, premise of his whole argument that WORDS ARE NOT TANGIBLY RESIDENT IN THE BRAIN

And I prove that assertion exceedingly WRONG . . .


You have only proven that encodings, biochemical processes and the like are tangible in the brain. I fully agree with this; but nowhere in the world does it state that brain processes are words or are like words or composed of words in any way—saying so requires a complete obfuscation of the term "word". Your brain-words are nothing more than the brain itself, because that is all you are really talking about.

If you don't agree with the definition of word you could have just stated that.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Trying (very unsuccessfully) to explain away, rationalize away reality

is NOT the same as destroying reality.

I cannot force horses to drink the water of truth.

Inked letters on a page are WORDS/word-forms.

Digital audio recordings of spoken or sung words are WORDS/word-forms.

Videos or pics of signed words are WORDS/word-forms.

Brain storage of WORDS/word-forms are also WORDS in tangible form.

I encourage those seeking the truth and reality to deal with it.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





Brain storage of WORDS/word-forms are also WORDS in tangible form.


Only according to you. Because we see trees, process their information, memorize them, can reason and talk about them, doesn't mean we have actual trees in our brain. This is simple common sense.

Brain processes and the brain itself are not words.


edit on 7-12-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc
 





Write down all the words that are outside your sense and thought.
Do you think that another person may sense and think about the words you don't yet know?
How else could you claim they are words if they have not been sensed or thought of?


There are languages I do not understand. Therefor I can confirm that they have words I have not seen nor thought of. I don't see what the problem with this is.


I said words are not separate from mind, that is why words can hurt {the person}, their meaning is known in the mind.

Yes. Their meaning is known in the mind. There is no actual word in there.


Words are the tool of mind. In your argument you have tried to say the meaning is not in the word when one senses and thinks of it. If this were true you would be unable to read or to understand spoken language.


If the meaning was in the word, you'd know what it meant just by looking at it. But no, you must learn what the word means first, thereby showing that the meaning is not in the word.


If a word first sensed is not yet known then the meaning is "unknown" , "unknown" is still a meaning.
This is why bully's don't use jibberish to hurt other persons as they would not be understood.
That is why when you communicate you assume those that read can understand your words.


If I was to bully you with words that you didn't understand, how are the words and their meaning not hurting you if the meaning is in the word? They are words are they not? I am not the one saying they hurt.


I am not the one saying when you speak jibberish to a person it will hurt them. Both meaning & the word is in the mind , they are not separate, the word is not separate from thought and sense.

There are many languages you have sensed and thought of (in your mind)but you do not understand them . You can confirm that there are words you have thought of and sensed but do not yet know/understand.


You recognize words you know by looking at them, when the word has not yet been sensed or thought of it is not known.
For how can a word be sensed and thought of before it is sensed and thought of? After it has been sensed and thought of it is known, not before as if it is not in the mind it does not appear to exist.





posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 





I am not the one saying when you speak jibberish to a person it will hurt them. Both meaning & the word is in the mind , they are not separate, the word is not separate from thought and sense.

There are many languages you have sensed and thought of (in your mind)but you do not understand them . You can confirm that there are words you have thought of and sensed but do not yet know/understand.


You recognize words you know by looking at them, when the word has not yet been sensed or thought of it is not known.
For how can a word be sensed and thought of before it is sensed and thought of? After it has been sensed and thought of it is known, not before as if it is not in the mind it does not appear to exist.


You did say that meaning was in the word. If the meaning is in the word, how do words that you don't understand not hurt you? If the meaning is in the word, you should be able to gather the meaning of the word just by hearing it. Isn't that so? You call words gibberish because there is no meaning for you in those words. Hence, there is no meaning in words. The meaning is, like you say, in the mind and learned.

Have you heard every language in the world? Have you thought about every language in the world? Languages use words, correct? I have not sensed or thought of all the languages in the world, therefor there are still words out of my senses and mind.

You can call it gibberish because to you it is, but they are still nonetheless words. If they are words and words hurt, why don't they hurt you? You've already said it. You don't understand what they mean, they are meaningless, you cannot connect a thought with them because you do not know what thought you should connect them with. They are void of meaning, but you aren't.

The word "tree" does not have any tree-like qualities. The choice of letters, it's structure and the sounds we make when we speak it is entirely arbitrary to its meaning. The meaning of the word is in the mind, in the memory, in the culture and not in the word. It is the meaning that hurts, and not the word.

If we were to ban the word "bread", and never used that word ever again, would you no longer know what cooked dough is? No, because the word itself is arbitrary and doesn't carry anything called meaning. It doesn't matter what you label cooked dough.

If I was to bully you and call you names, the words you hear do nothing but signify my thoughts. They don't signify your thoughts. So how is it that my thoughts, signified by my words, can hurt you?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc
 





I am not the one saying when you speak jibberish to a person it will hurt them. Both meaning & the word is in the mind , they are not separate, the word is not separate from thought and sense.

There are many languages you have sensed and thought of (in your mind)but you do not understand them . You can confirm that there are words you have thought of and sensed but do not yet know/understand.


You recognize words you know by looking at them, when the word has not yet been sensed or thought of it is not known.
For how can a word be sensed and thought of before it is sensed and thought of? After it has been sensed and thought of it is known, not before as if it is not in the mind it does not appear to exist.


You did say that meaning was in the word. If the meaning is in the word, how do words that you don't understand not hurt you? If the meaning is in the word, you should be able to gather the meaning of the word just by hearing it. Isn't that so? You call words gibberish because there is no meaning for you in those words. Hence, there is no meaning in words. The meaning is, like you say, in the mind and learned.

Have you heard every language in the world? Have you thought about every language in the world? Languages use words, correct? I have not sensed or thought of all the languages in the world, therefor there are still words out of my senses and mind.

You can call it gibberish because to you it is, but they are still nonetheless words. If they are words and words hurt, why don't they hurt you? You've already said it. You don't understand what they mean, they are meaningless, you cannot connect a thought with them because you do not know what thought you should connect them with. They are void of meaning, but you aren't.

The word "tree" does not have any tree-like qualities. The choice of letters, it's structure and the sounds we make when we speak it is entirely arbitrary to its meaning. The meaning of the word is in the mind, in the memory, in the culture and not in the word. It is the meaning that hurts, and not the word.

If we were to ban the word "bread", and never used that word ever again, would you no longer know what cooked dough is? No, because the word itself is arbitrary and doesn't carry anything called meaning. It doesn't matter what you label cooked dough.

If I was to bully you and call you names, the words you hear do nothing but signify my thoughts. They don't signify your thoughts. So how is it that my thoughts, signified by my words, can hurt you?


If you were to bully me and call you names, first I must sense the WORDS, for only then I can recognize the word (meaning of the words).
No words no bullying.
Aren't your words your thoughts communicated by speech. Thoughts can hurt. You are trying to separate what is not separate again.
When your hateful bullying words(thoughts) are communicated by words why would they not hurt the person. We both understand the meaning of the words you use to communicate= thats how.

I did not say that ALL words hurt.
I did not separate words from their meaning or from the person.
If the words meaning is not understood then the meaning of the word is “unknown” .
You know that you have not sensed or thought of all words, this does not mean that other persons have not or do not sense or think of them. If you think of them, like you are now, how are they outside of your mind?
You just don’t know what they mean and you know you don’t know.

Words are not void of meaning in the mind, a new word sensed having an unknown meaning does not mean you will think it is meaningless, it just means you know you do not know its meaning yet. Bully's do not use jibberish or unknown language to communicate their thoughts to the person. Bully's know their hateful thoughts communicated by words will hurt the person, that hurt is their intended action.

The meaning of the word is in the mind, and it is in the word as the word is not separate from the mind. The word ( which is not separate from is meaning) can hurt, the word cannot be separated from mind(sense and thought).Words are tools of the mind.







posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Only according to you.


More brazen falsehoods, I see.

NOPE, according to scientific brain imaging and scans.
NOPE, according to logic.
NOPE, according to common sense.



Because we see trees, process their information, memorize them, can reason and talk about them, doesn't mean we have actual trees in our brain. This is simple common sense.


Evidently, not in your brain, are the facts of the matter common sense.

Please show me where any of us said we had "actual" trees in our brain?

Do you have a whole kennel breeding straw dogs?



Brain processes and the brain itself are not words.


That sounds like a kind of off the wall sort of illogically skewed assertion without much sensible reality or truth to it at all--beyond the obvious.

1. Brain processes are, OF COURSE, not the nerves nor are they the myelin sheath surrounding the nerve cells; nor the nerve connections. WHAT AN ABSURD STRAW DOG! Your groping is getting embarrassing.

2. And traffic is not the streets, nor the cars. Soooo? Sheesh.

3. The brain is not words any more than the cars in Phoenix are not all the cars in Arizona. Sheesh.

4. HOWEVER, as I've documented with scientific study articles, SOME OF THE BRAIN IS WORDS--hard-wired into the brain the first years of life and in subsequent learning of new vocabulary. Your denial of that fact is . . . incredible.

5. Below is another study documenting that words etc. ARE RESIDENT IN THE MATTER OF THE BRAIN.


www.thealmagest.com...

Method of recording brain activity could lead to mind-reading devices, Stanford scientists say



A brain region activated when people are asked to perform mathematical calculations in an experimental setting is similarly activated when they use numbers — or even imprecise quantitative terms, such as “more than”— in everyday conversation, according to a study by Stanford University School of Medicine scientists.
. . .


The finding could lead to “mind-reading” applications that, for example, would allow a patient who is rendered mute by a stroke to communicate via passive thinking. Conceivably, it could also lead to more dystopian outcomes: chip implants that spy on or even control people’s thoughts.
. . .
.
His team’s method, called intracranial recording, provided exquisite anatomical and temporal precision and allowed the scientists to monitor brain activity when people were immersed in real-life situations. . . .
.

They found that when a patient mentioned a number — or even a quantitative reference, such as “some more,” “many” or “bigger than the other one” — there was a spike of electrical activity in the same nerve-cell population of the intraparietal sulcus that was activated when the patient was doing calculations under experimental conditions.
.


IF the words that the thoughts were composed of were not IN THE BRAIN, there could be NO eavesdropping on them!

And, if there's some silly notion in someone's noggin that numbers are not words--that's absurd. Numbers ARE mathematical words in terms of the issue of words being the smallest meaning unit in communication between humans . . . and the fact of words being hard-wired IN THE BRAIN.
.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc
 


You did say that meaning was in the word. If the meaning is in the word, how do words that you don't understand not hurt you?


Which of the following words do you fail to Grok?

WORDS ARE SMALL UNITS OF MEANING IN HUMAN COMMUNICATION. The same word in a known language in the brains of two people who know that language carries roughly the same meaning in said communication--in much the same way that a bucket carries water--only more so. The MEANING IN THE WORD IS INHERENT by mutual agreement of all those who have learned THAT language.. The water in the bucket is not inherently part of the bucket as meaning is inherently part of the word in a given language.




If the meaning is in the word, you should be able to gather the meaning of the word just by hearing it. Isn't that so?


NO. It' s NOT so, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT LEARNED THAT LANGUAGE! DOH!

It IS the case that the meaning is in the word and hearing it carries said meaning FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LEARNED THE LANGUAGE, HAVE FUNCTIONING HEARING AND A FUNCTIONING BRAIN in the associated areas. Sigh.



You call words gibberish because there is no meaning for you in those words. Hence, there is no meaning in words.


More brazen absurdity.

That's like saying scrambled eggs are not eggs because they are scrambled.

Which word below do you not understand?

WORDS shared between humans who know the same language and who know the associated vocabulary being used CARRY CONGRUENT identical or closely similar meaning from SENDER TO RECEIVER. That's called COMMUNICATION. IF there were NO meaning IN THE WORDS RESIDENT IN SENDER AND RECEIVER'S BRAINS, there would be NO communication.

It appears to be an almost foreign process for some on ATS.



If they are words and words hurt, why don't they hurt you?


What incredible obtuseness, perversity, contrariness or outright lack of awareness and understanding at a very basic level.

BECAUSE--FOR THOSE NOT cohorts who understand THAT specific language and that specific vocabulary--the sound symbols, the text symbols, the sign language symbols and/or other word symbols are NOT FOR THOSE NOT OF THAT LANGUAGE GROUP-->WORDS. They are ONLY FUNCTIONING WORDS for those who know THAT language.



The meaning of the word is in the mind, in the memory, in the culture and not in the word. It is the meaning that hurts, and not the word.


WHAT BRAZENLY UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.

The culture and the minds concerned in the same language group have invested in each word of that language agreed upon meaning THAT IS THEN INHERENTLY RESIDENT IN EACH OF THOSE WORDS RESIDENT IN THE BRAINS OF THOSE CONCERNED. The meaning and the WORDs are inseparable within that language. There are no functional words without the meaning. There is no functional meaning without the words concerned.



If we were to ban the word "bread", and never used that word ever again, would you no longer know what cooked dough is? No, because the word itself is arbitrary and doesn't carry anything called meaning. It doesn't matter what you label cooked dough.


MORE BRAZENLY UNMITIGATED NONSENSE.

ONCE the language agrees upon a WORD, it is NO LONGER ARBITRARY. It's absurd that you or any rational sentient human would think otherwise.

. . . unless you are merely being obstinately obtuse just for the fun of being obstinately obtuse to the nth degree . . . .



If I was to bully you and call you names, the words you hear do nothing but signify my thoughts. They don't signify your thoughts. So how is it that my thoughts, signified by my words, can hurt you?


What MORE unmitigated nonsense.

It still boggles my mind that you can ask that kind of question with seemingly a straight face.

Once again . . .

1. Father tells Johnny 2-3 dozen times a day that Johnny is a useless stinking pile of worthless ####.

2. Father's word choices carry the DESIRED MEANING OF THE FATHER inherent in those words to the brain of Johnny which has those words RESIDENT in Johnny's brain with roughly the same inherent MEANING to the words that the father has and that the Father deliberately used to cause Johnny pain.

3. IF Johnny were a mature adult and IF Johnny didn't care what father said about him--highly unlikely--even as a disowned adult--then the meaning INHERENT IN THE WORDS would likely carry LESS pain. But LESS pain is not the same as NO pain. And even if Johnny was now 40 years old after 25 years of hard therapy and no longer cared SIGNIFICANTLY what destructive painful things daddy said, there would still likely be some at least slight tweak if he happened upon Dad on the street and Dad again called him a worthless pile of ####.

4. When Johnny was a toddler, Daddy DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO FLING HURTFUL PAINFUL WORDS INTO JOHNNY'S BRAIN SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GOAL OF CAUSING JOHNNY PAIN . . . out of Dad's own twisted pain and immaturity, evil. He succeeded because the WORDS resident in Dad's brain were roughly equal in their inherent meaning to the same words resident in Johnny's brain.

5. Johnny valued Daddy's word choices because Daddy's inherently communicate WORTH to their children above and beyond any sense of worth mothers communicate. Mothers tend to love regardless. And Daddys may love regardless too. However, children inherently know that Daddy's approval is of a different sort and quality than mothers. Consequently, Daddy's rejection and disapproval CONVEYED IN THE BUCKETS OF WORDS CARRIES HORRIFIC MEANING AND HORRIFIC CONSEQUENCES.

Denial of those facts is simply . . . wholesale unaware . . . to put it extremely mildly and politely.
.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 





Sigh.


It's still the funniest thing I've ever read. It paints a good picture. Just perfect.



Please show me where any of us said we had "actual" trees in our brain?



Obviously the tree remark was an analogy. Change the word "tree" with "words" and I could quote every single one of your posts.



IF there were NO meaning IN THE WORDS RESIDENT IN SENDER AND RECEIVER'S BRAINS, there would be NO communication.


I already said meaning was in the mind. You're merely calling meaning "words" for whatever reason.

Look, we're talking about different things here. Your definition of word has flip flopped like a fish out of water, and I'm having a rather tough time reading your strange format. There's no way we can have a proper philosophical talk about something if we cannot agree with what we are talking about. I don't see thoughts as words. I see words and thinking as two entirely different entities.

But like I said, the way someone uses words is really telling of their character. You've taken the offensive, and in doing so, have resorted to simple-minded school yard antics in a crusade to offend the one you're typing to. But everything you've implied about my state of mind, my lesser education, and my past, obviously reflect more on you than it does on me. This is the nature of bullying. We hear the bully's thoughts when he speaks; and his thoughts reflect only him and his opinions. How could I be bullied by your thoughts?

The child on the other hand obviously depends on and values what his father thinks. Likewise with schoolyard bullying—children care what their peers think. Something hurts when we see or hear any expression about us when they are contrary to our own. Being still very impressionable, this can obviously do untold harm. But the expression of thought into words cannot be shown to cause any damage. It is the impression of words into thought where something obviously occurs, whether it be joy, laughter, sorrow or depression. This is especially noticeable when we don't get a joke right away, we've heard the words but there's no reaction, but then laugh once we better understand it.

I am hostile to both your views because they give ammo to people who would seek to make words weapons. It is common these days to teach our children that words are weapons at the same time we teach them to speak and write, sending them forth with an ever-growing stockpile of ammunition. But they are not weapons. They are signs.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Sure. They can cause tooth loss.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Words will make one suffer if one does not realize what words are.

If one thinks one is a word - a concept - a thing - then one will be lost and confused.

Words can lead one astray.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





Words will make one suffer if one does not realize what words are.


Exactly. That's what this whole thread is about.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





Words will make one suffer if one does not realize what words are.


Exactly. That's what this whole thread is about.



Surely your last contradiction has nothing to do with 'not buying into concepts' which is now exactly what the whole thread is about.



LesMisanthrope

Something hurts when we see or hear any expression about us when they are contrary to our own. Being still very impressionable, this can obviously do untold harm.
But the expression of thought into words cannot be shown to cause any damage.


What did you just say about words ...
That the expression of thoughts into words does " obviously do untold harm" to the person then you go on to say it doesn't hurt the person.


LesMisanthrope
I am hostile to both your views because they give ammo to people who would seek to make words weapons. It is common these days to teach our children that words are weapons at the same time we teach them to speak and write, sending them forth with an ever-growing stockpile of ammunition. But they are not weapons. They are signs.

Words are ammunition?
Knowing words hurt the person does not give bullies ammo for as you know the bullies already know.





posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 





Surely your last contradiction has nothing to do with 'not buying into concepts' which is now exactly what the whole thread is about.


I don't understand what you're trying to say here. This thread is about whether words have any harmful effects or not.

If words hurt you then you must think they are true. The same goes with concepts.


What did you just say about words ...
That the expression of thoughts into words does " obviously do untold harm" to the person then you go on to say it doesn't hurt the person.


I said "words do not hurt the person". Your reaction to words, how you handle them, and how you are credulous towards them, are not words.



Words are ammunition?
Knowing words hurt the person does not give bullies ammo for as you know the bullies already know.


But words don't hurt the person. Bullies know only what we've taught them, and you are teaching that words hurt.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Again you are separating the person from the word.





LesMisanthrope
If words hurt you then you must think they are true. The same goes with concepts.

That is not true as if the person says or thinks is not inline with what the other person thinks it can hurt(ego).
You don't have to believe words for them to hurt the person. When one person thinks something hateful/wrong it does not follow that a person needs to believe to be hurt by it.
If the newspaper wrote a heap of lies about you it would hurt you even when you know it not to be true.



To have a hurt reaction to a word you must first have a word , no word no reaction.
No person, no reaction.



LesMisanthrope Something hurts when we see or hear any expression about us when they are contrary to our own. Being still very impressionable, this can obviously do untold harm

Not only hurt you say but do untold harm, yip thats right.
Sometimes negative words that support ones fears, negative self image or other negative thoughts can also do harm.


You say words are ammunition?
Isn't that a concept.
You feel hostility to ideas that say words used as ammunition to hurt the person- hurt the person.
Knowing words hurt the person does not give bullies ammo for as you know the bullies already know.
Bullies already know words hurt the person.
I'll be positive:
What's you solution to the problem with words and the reactions in the mind of the person.?


?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

LesMisanthrope
But words don't hurt the person. Bullies know only what we've taught them, and you are teaching that words hurt.

Yes - words DO hurt the 'person'.
Because the 'person' will always take words personally. It is only when it is realized that there is no 'person' that words will no longer hurt.
'Person' is a concept and concepts take words personally.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Just a funny observation. Words and the power people give them... toward themselves.

I was in a match a few years ago and this gal was slinging smack talk like NUTS. Typically words dont have too much meaning for me other than for basic communication and sometimes I can be moved by the "weight" of words.. but they typically arent weapons that can be used on me very well. Id not considered it previously, but it dawned on me that if she put so much effort in using words in this way.. that meant words also could be used as a weapon against her. You know, since she attached so much significance to them herself. Trying to hurt or intimidate me with blunt weapons like words, she opened up her own weakness. Some here know me personally.. I just dont talk much at all in real life. I didnt do the pre match trash talk.. but boy did I whisper sweet nothings to her throughout the match everytime she got close to me. I think that girl was about to crap her pants before one strike even landed. People are funny things.. they make things dangerous to themselves.. and give it away trying to hurt you with the thing THEY are afraid of.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Advantage
Just a funny observation. Words and the power people give them... toward themselves.

I was in a match a few years ago and this gal was slinging smack talk like NUTS. Typically words dont have too much meaning for me other than for basic communication and sometimes I can be moved by the "weight" of words.. but they typically arent weapons that can be used on me very well. Id not considered it previously, but it dawned on me that if she put so much effort in using words in this way.. that meant words also could be used as a weapon against her. You know, since she attached so much significance to them herself. Trying to hurt or intimidate me with blunt weapons like words, she opened up her own weakness. Some here know me personally.. I just dont talk much at all in real life. I didnt do the pre match trash talk.. but boy did I whisper sweet nothings to her throughout the match everytime she got close to me. I think that girl was about to crap her pants before one strike even landed. People are funny things.. they make things dangerous to themselves.. and give it away trying to hurt you with the thing THEY are afraid of.



What is a "match"? Do you mean you were going to a sports game and had an argument over a sports team?
Or is it like cage fighting only you use words?

Sounds ghastly.





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join