nons?
is that 'people who are not'
non: nothing, not a thing, isn't anything
anon: anonymous
the nons insult the anons by calling them nons?
it's like saying murica that means 'fellatio giver' in some medeteranian language?
non? 'wasting bread'
the use of 'non' is fine if one knows that is what the person does but it also is a marker that it's not a real person. It's a devolver of language shill.
and why do you get to say what that task is, that is at hand?
the devolution of lingo is what enemies do so that their rivals sound like idiots.
that's OK with you?
followed by the Dept of Commerce letting it be given away for free to foreigner triple citizens who then charge everyone to use the patents?
things only have double meanings when they mean something in the first place
the ambiguity of using the sylable 'non' to mean 'anon' is too large.
and thus when you replace 'anon' with 'non', which is insulting too, what you are really doing is just devolving the lingo.
no one should take you seriously.
if yo uare a real person your task here is merely to distract.
if you are a bot the people who set you loose here aren't doing us any favors.
in any case you mumble on in the manner as you desire. I just figured that maybe if you were a real thing than you'd want to understand that if you do that 'non' bit, aliding 'anon' to be 'non'
-
people will not understand you
-
they will be insulted because you called them a non-person
-
you will immediately be seen as sloppy in your posts (no big deal there)
-
you'll be insulting the anon.
so you do what you want.
one man's waste is another man's treasure.
you are redditiculous
now it uses a form that is not an insult.
it thinks it is 'destracting' us but in fact our purpose
is to
up their glow
see how it glows now?
so anyone else who encounters this format of post in the future will understand
ah, not to be taken seriously.
this is a timewaster
mission forward
the mindset of 'capture' of institutions is a treason about democracy