What you do not understand, and Jay assuredly does not understand, is that in the course of my past few replies to him, I have been trying to extricate myself from some large parts of that discussion as gracefully as I can without frankly telling him to get bent.


I admit that when “JayJuanGee” suggested that “I” may be nullius, that was only disinformation for me to divert attention from my sockpuppet theatre between “Jay” and “death_wish”.  It was probably a mistake for “Jay” to be the first explicitly to proclaim the “nullius” theory:  It now raises suspicions.

I suppose I may as well admit to the JJG/DW sockpuppet show, since the charade was no match for ImThour’s IQ.

The point where this becomes very confusing is where “Jay” wonders if I am a dog or a cat.


I recall that nullius said similarly.  I could look around and find it in his prolific wall-of-words post history.  Are you nullius?


That’s literally schizophrenic.

“Literally”, not “clinically”.  The literal sense is “split mind”.  I am not accusing you of a mental disease.


I was not comparing Nietzsche to Jay.  I would not make that comparison.  I sometimes compare Nietzsche to myself.

I don’t know why you would wildly misread what I said as comparing Nietzsche to Jay.  I said that Nietzsche often wrote “aphoristically”...
...viz., that he wrote in short, poetic sayings pregnant with meaning.  For instance:

“He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart.”  (“Wer in Blut und Sprüchen schreibt, der will nicht gelesen, sondern auswendig gelernt werden.”)

Do you see Jay writing anywhere aphoristically?

In the post to which you replied, I myself wrote aphoristically.  I believe that post was one of the best writings that I have ever made:  Succinct.  Meaningful.  Writ in blood and proverbs.  Not to be read:  To be learnt.