Tyw. Said Something That Makes Alot Of Sense!

[jaa]

HA, my childhood.



I am curious where you found this if you can dig it up. I used to follow Eck and Wilson pretty closely and was the worse for it. I know Eck died relatively young compared to his promised results, I would love to read more about his end.



I actually really like your posts man, they are intelligent and they do expand the mind to look at other possibilities. I have also been at this for awhile, maybe not 10 years, but almost. At some point it is very difficult not to fall into context overload. You can get on these tracts where you are looking at someone and their life, and you see a stress caused by XYZ, which comes from something in their history, which caused a compensation that is unhealthy for them, but is actually holding this other factor together which is very positive, and if they lost the positive it would actually make the original stress worse off, and so if you remove XYZ without addressing this positive thing you end up making their life worse, and on and on.

The point is, decision paralysis is real the more you know. You say things like this: "This needs to be qualified," "what does that mean in a particular person's real context?," "but I cannot comment on all the clinical contexts that I've seen," or "What is this particular person's problem? That is something that requires enough knowledge of the person's environment to answer."

I mean I get it. These are safe, and no one will ever challenge you really when you stand on such shaky ground. These thoughts are in some ways true even! Who is going to challenge "find what works best for you," that is like the motto of the forums.

But these thoughts really harm you man. I am being totally honest, these thoughts really mess up your life. They come from a place of nihilism. They try to address universals instead of individuals. They stay safe from criticism at the expense of being too broad to matter. I have lived for years with these thoughts, and your life will go no where satisfying. You will let slip by chances to really help people. Someone will come up and say hey I have this problem, what should I do, and they will walk away with more questions.

Haidut has been wrong about a lot. I followed him down a rabbit hole of super high doses of Caffeine, Aspirin, and Niacinamide. No one talks about that metabolism boosting experiment because it was a pretty big failure long term. But Haidut has helped me tremendously just by being willing to take the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That is my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

I'm a bit surprised at that perspective. tyw has offered plenty of specific advice. From how insulin sensitivity is affected by circadian rhythms and how you can construct your meals in light of that, to the dangers of consuming a lot of saturated fat with fructose, and between and beyond. And when he says things are context dependent, that isn't the equivalent of him throwing up his hands and saying we don't know so nothing matters you might as well do what you want. What he means is if we had more information the advice would change and often he gives a broad brush description of how the advice changes under different contexts. To use a poker analogy, if someone came up to you and asked how to play pocket aces, you wouldn't say you go all in or raise a little or whatever. That would be meaningless advice that would be helpful in some contexts and harmful in others. In order to properly answer the question you would have to ask questions like: what is the board? What was the betting history? What are the opponents tendencies? etc. Only then could you zone in on the proper answer space. Alternatively you could outline a few basic scenarios and give a generic strategy that would usually be helpful under those circumstances. Just because your answer is "it depends", doesn't mean you don't believe there's a correct answer. And it doesn't mean there's a specific answer better than "it depends".

 

[tyw]

Can you please point me to the evidence showing PUFA is clearly essential? Or the evidence that a brain cannot function well without some amount of DHA or ARA?
We have people in the hospital that are EFA deficient confirmed both by blood tests (Mead acid) and adipose tissue biopsy. They are not dropping like flies, on the contrary are the perkiest on the floor. Their mental function is excellent and much better than the one of doctors that treat them. MRIs have been done for other reasons and no structurel abnormality has been found, even though they do not seem to have any EFA or DHA/EPA.
Btw, they got EFA due to IV feeding for a few weeks using fat-free formula.

The post I linked to in your quoted post already proved this. I link it again -- Haidut's Summary Of PUFA

First off, I credit this to the book 'Human Longevity' by David Valentine. This was a specific case study about the case of Barth syndrome -- Barth syndrome - Wikipedia

I like these sorts of comparisons, because here you have a genetic defect, which prevents 18:2 (linoleic acid) from getting incorporated into cardiolipin.

To quote Valentine again:

The major molecular species of CL in cardiac cells is (18:2)4-CL, in which linoleic acid (18:2) occupies all four acyl positions. In Barth’s syndrome the trend is that the 18:2 chains are replaced with more saturated fatty acids, including 18:1.​

This is great! It gives us a chance to study a "natural Knock-out model" (the kind where scientists knock-out a particular gene in mice, and then study the effects with and without that gene).

We have an unambiguous comparison between Cardiolipin having 18:2, which leads to normal function, and cardiolipin being more saturated, which leads to a very dangerous disease.

This case alone, should be sufficient enough to say that 18:2 is absolutely needed for normal function. Similarly, forcing 18:2 supplementation unto Barth's Syndrome fibroblasts recovers most of their function -- Linoleic acid supplemention of Barth syndrome fibroblasts restores cardiolipin levels

This is unambiguous -- a 18:2 deficiency in Cardiolipin leads to disease and death. Since 18:2 cannot be made by humans, it must be gotten from the diet, thus it is termed "Essential".

The linked post went further into why 18:2 exactly must be used, and not the more unsaturated PUFAs. The fact that 1 double bond does not work, 2 double bonds work, and 3 or more double bonds do not work, prove that the body is purposefully regulating Cardiolipin to use 18:2. This is where I make the claim that "endogenous regulation is absolutely necessary".

----

I can go on with many examples using different PUFAs, but for ease of understanding, this one counter example is sufficient to disprove the idea that PUFA are unessential.

.....

 

[tyw]

I actually really like your posts man, they are intelligent and they do expand the mind to look at other possibilities. I have also been at this for awhile, maybe not 10 years, but almost. At some point it is very difficult not to fall into context overload. You can get on these tracts where you are looking at someone and their life, and you see a stress caused by XYZ, which comes from something in their history, which caused a compensation that is unhealthy for them, but is actually holding this other factor together which is very positive, and if they lost the positive it would actually make the original stress worse off, and so if you remove XYZ without addressing this positive thing you end up making their life worse, and on and on.

The point is, decision paralysis is real the more you know. You say things like this: "This needs to be qualified," "what does that mean in a particular person's real context?," "but I cannot comment on all the clinical contexts that I've seen," or "What is this particular person's problem? That is something that requires enough knowledge of the person's environment to answer."

I mean I get it. These are safe, and no one will ever challenge you really when you stand on such shaky ground. These thoughts are in some ways true even! Who is going to challenge "find what works best for you," that is like the motto of the forums.

But these thoughts really harm you man. I am being totally honest, these thoughts really mess up your life. They come from a place of nihilism. They try to address universals instead of individuals. They stay safe from criticism at the expense of being too broad to matter. I have lived for years with these thoughts, and your life will go no where satisfying. You will let slip by chances to really help people. Someone will come up and say hey I have this problem, what should I do, and they will walk away with more questions.

Haidut has been wrong about a lot. I followed him down a rabbit hole of super high doses of Caffeine, Aspirin, and Niacinamide. No one talks about that metabolism boosting experiment because it was a pretty big failure long term. But Haidut has helped me tremendously just by being willing to take the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That is my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

One problem is that I am not a doctor, and thus am not qualified to give medical advice. Even if I was, I would not be able to give that advice on an internet forum. I am thus not able to elucidate the exact mechanisms by which a medical practitioner would qualify that context (many ways -- questionnaires, patient monitoring, blood work, genetic analyses, esoteric nonsense, etc ...)

All someone like me can do, is to give vague hints at possible routes of experimentation. The example of circadian timing has been raised, whereby I claim some evidence to show that insulin sensitivity is greater in the morning, and thus carbohydrates can be shifted to the morning. This is a simple experiment, and user @m_arch shows one example of running this -- How The Sugar Industry Shifted Blame To Fat

This is an example of "Take what you like and leave the rest". If something I said is useful, that's OK. If it's not useful, at least it's some entertainment .

I do not try to help people, that I am very clear about (and if people notice, I do not make a post unless it is in response to something else -- like this thread, which has my username in the title ...).

Yet, I have not shied away from criticism. I have raised many direct mechanical processes, which by definition, is inviting falsification. If a mechanic is falsified, I say, "this is wrong". On the same token, when I am called to respond to a mechanic which I deem false, I will say, "this is false, because XYZ" (just like I did in my most recent post above).

How the narrative of a forum post is interpreted, is up to the reader. That much I cannot control in a medium like an online forum.

One-on-one with at least voice and video is a different story, and I think those who have had those interactions with me have inevitably found a much more individualised (and informal) conservation .

.....

 

[haidut]

The post I linked to in your quoted post already proved this. I link it again -- Haidut's Summary Of PUFA

First off, I credit this to the book 'Human Longevity' by David Valentine. This was a specific case study about the case of Barth syndrome -- Barth syndrome - Wikipedia

I like these sorts of comparisons, because here you have a genetic defect, which prevents 18:2 (linoleic acid) from getting incorporated into cardiolipin.

To quote Valentine again:

The major molecular species of CL in cardiac cells is (18:2)4-CL, in which linoleic acid (18:2) occupies all four acyl positions. In Barth’s syndrome the trend is that the 18:2 chains are replaced with more saturated fatty acids, including 18:1.​

This is great! It gives us a chance to study a "natural Knock-out model" (the kind where scientists knock-out a particular gene in mice, and then study the effects with and without that gene).

We have an unambiguous comparison between Cardiolipin having 18:2, which leads to normal function, and cardiolipin being more saturated, which leads to a very dangerous disease.

This case alone, should be sufficient enough to say that 18:2 is absolutely needed for normal function. Similarly, forcing 18:2 supplementation unto Barth's Syndrome fibroblasts recovers most of their function -- Linoleic acid supplemention of Barth syndrome fibroblasts restores cardiolipin levels

This is unambiguous -- a 18:2 deficiency in Cardiolipin leads to disease and death. Since 18:2 cannot be made by humans, it must be gotten from the diet, thus it is termed "Essential".

The linked post went further into why 18:2 exactly must be used, and not the more unsaturated PUFAs. The fact that 1 double bond does not work, 2 double bonds work, and 3 or more double bonds do not work, prove that the body is purposefully regulating Cardiolipin to use 18:2. This is where I make the claim that "endogenous regulation is absolutely necessary".

----

I can go on with many examples using different PUFAs, but for ease of understanding, this one counter example is sufficient to disprove the idea that PUFA are unessential.

.....

Thanks, but I don't find the genetic condition example convincing, neither the observational evidence of some species favoring PUFA through feeding. We don't know what else is dysregulated in Barth syndrome. A mutation is never an isolated event. As you know, even a single mutation has effects on transcription across multiple genes. Always more than one often affecting the silencing/activation of hundreds if not thousands of genes.
Like I said, I interact with EFA deficient people on a daily basis and they do not have any gross pathology detectable as structural abnormality on scans or anything showing up on blood tests that would constitute a pathology. Perhaps most notably, even though less applicable to systemic health, they do not have the famous scaly skin or wasting reported by the Burr studies. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe these people do have a little EFA synthesized through those alternative pathways. In a completely EFA deficient cell culture, humans cells can be maintained indefinitely and are not subject to the Hayflick limit.
Fat-free Cultured Cells: No Need For PUFAS; Where Are The Studies ?

To this day we do not have a proper replication of the Burr experiment in humans, including groups fed B6, zinc and biotin, which supposedly takes care of the deficiency symptoms. If you are aware of anything that addresses this as an actual experiment please let me know. We had a very similar situation up until very recently - blaming saturated fat based on a single (possibly fraudulent) study from the 1960s. And now the official stance on saturated fat and cholesterol has been reversed.

 

[Mjhl85]

Talk about context.
@tyw

One problem is that I am not a doctor, and thus am not qualified to give medical advice. Even if I was, I would not be able to give that advice on an internet forum. I am thus not able to elucidate the exact mechanisms by which a medical practitioner would qualify that context (many ways -- questionnaires, patient monitoring, blood work, genetic analyses, esoteric nonsense, etc ...)

All someone like me can do, is to give vague hints at possible routes of experimentation. The example of circadian timing has been raised, whereby I claim some evidence to show that insulin sensitivity is greater in the morning, and thus carbohydrates can be shifted to the morning. This is a simple experiment, and user @m_arch shows one example of running this -- How The Sugar Industry Shifted Blame To Fat

This is an example of "Take what you like and leave the rest". If something I said is useful, that's OK. If it's not useful, at least it's some entertainment .

I do not try to help people, that I am very clear about (and if people notice, I do not make a post unless it is in response to something else -- like this thread, which has my username in the title ...).

Yet, I have not shied away from criticism. I have raised many direct mechanical processes, which by definition, is inviting falsification. If a mechanic is falsified, I say, "this is wrong". On the same token, when I am called to respond to a mechanic which I deem false, I will say, "this is false, because XYZ" (just like I did in my most recent post above).

How the narrative of a forum post is interpreted, is up to the reader. That much I cannot control in a medium like an online forum.

One-on-one with at least voice and video is a different story, and I think those who have had those interactions with me have inevitably found a much more individualised (and informal) conservation .

.....

Your reasons for being vague are vague themselves. i mean, who is seriously going to buy that??? Utter nonsense.
Sorry to say but I have found you to be somewhat of a usurper. You've done it on other forums as well.
I think you like to quietly come onto a forum, posts long tedious posts, be vague, somehow point out you are a smart software dev and vaguely showboat that you
know obscure and "vital" things about nutrition. I think you like when people believe you to be smart. Using phrases like "absolutely false," your tag of "Assert. De-complect. Falsify" shows your idea of self indulgence rather than strategic overcoming in problem solving such as "think, act, perceive," and you yourself speaking out of context shows that. I think in your quest to come across super intelligent you are also condescending. Those annoying icons you use to "politely" shoot a person's idea down and implicitly say "no stupid, this is the truth" never fail to appear in your tedious posts. That's the vibe I get from you. Others post quite a bit here and prolifically as well but I don't sense that from them. Whatever, my opinion. I've found no value in your posts other than being a contrarian. I personally don't care for detail when they have no practical value. @haidut has actually helped me. Some other forum members have actually helped me and it has nothing to do with the vague pondering and pontificating similar to your vague posts. It has to do with the direction and thinking of a man this forum is named after and for good reason. There's a lot wrong actually with points you make and your comprehension skills are not quite up to snuff (anybody reading this thread alone can see that) but I have ZERO desire to point them out to you. That's something you'll have to figure out on your own <--- see what I did there?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Talk about context.
@tyw

Your reasons for being vague are vague themselves. i mean, who is seriously going to buy that??? Utter nonsense.
Sorry to say but I have found you to be somewhat of a usurper. You've done it on other forums as well.
I think you like to quietly come onto a forum, posts long tedious posts, be vague, somehow point out you are a smart software dev and vaguely showboat that you
know obscure and "vital" things about nutrition. I think you like when people believe you to be smart. Using phrases like "absolutely false," your tag of "Assert. De-complect. Falsify" shows your idea of self indulgence rather than strategic overcoming in problem solving such as "think, act, perceive," and you yourself speaking out of context shows that. I think in your quest to come across super intelligent you are also condescending. Those annoying icons you use to "politely" shoot a person's idea down and implicitly say "no stupid, this is the truth" never fail to appear in your tedious posts. That's the vibe I get from you. Others post quite a bit here and prolifically as well but I don't sense that from them. Whatever, my opinion. I've found no value in your posts other than being a contrarian. I personally don't care for detail when they have no practical value. @haidut has actually helped me. Some other forum members have actually helped me and it has nothing to do with the vague pondering and pontificating similar to your vague posts. It has to do with the direction and thinking of a man this forum is named after and for good reason. There's a lot wrong actually with points you make and your comprehension skills are not quite up to snuff (anybody reading this thread alone can see that) but I have ZERO desire to point them out to you. That's something you'll have to figure out on your own <--- see what I did there?

Ad hominem.

 

[Mjhl85]

Ad hominem.
.

I'm stating my perspective as I see it. Call it whatever you like.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I'm stating my perspective as I see it. Call it whatever you like.

K.

 

[Hitoshi]

That escalated quickly.

 

[Jarman]

Talk about context.
@tyw

Your reasons for being vague are vague themselves. i mean, who is seriously going to buy that??? Utter nonsense.
Sorry to say but I have found you to be somewhat of a usurper. You've done it on other forums as well.
I think you like to quietly come onto a forum, posts long tedious posts, be vague, somehow point out you are a smart software dev and vaguely showboat that you
know obscure and "vital" things about nutrition. I think you like when people believe you to be smart. Using phrases like "absolutely false," your tag of "Assert. De-complect. Falsify" shows your idea of self indulgence rather than strategic overcoming in problem solving such as "think, act, perceive," and you yourself speaking out of context shows that. I think in your quest to come across super intelligent you are also condescending. Those annoying icons you use to "politely" shoot a person's idea down and implicitly say "no stupid, this is the truth" never fail to appear in your tedious posts. That's the vibe I get from you. Others post quite a bit here and prolifically as well but I don't sense that from them. Whatever, my opinion. I've found no value in your posts other than being a contrarian. I personally don't care for detail when they have no practical value. @haidut has actually helped me. Some other forum members have actually helped me and it has nothing to do with the vague pondering and pontificating similar to your vague posts. It has to do with the direction and thinking of a man this forum is named after and for good reason. There's a lot wrong actually with points you make and your comprehension skills are not quite up to snuff (anybody reading this thread alone can see that) but I have ZERO desire to point them out to you. That's something you'll have to figure out on your own <--- see what I did there?

Now this is just straight personal attack. It adds no value to the forum at all. This is just Kim Kardashian drama.

I find tyw's posts to be very informative and useful to him. I even implemented some of his suggestions and improved my health tremendously. I'm sure plenty of others have benefited greatly from his posts.

It's sad to bully a minority just because he doesn't fully agree with the the group-think. It makes this place seem very hostile to people with differing opinions. It drives people away instead inviting people in.

I hope tyw is not swayed by this type of hostility and stays.

 

[tyw]

@haidut. the case of Barth Syndrome is localised to the TAZ gene, and every single case of this mutation led to the same cardiolipin defect that was mentioned -- Bloodspot assay using HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry for detection of Barth syndrome. - PubMed - NCBI . I think this is a solid case for saying that some level of PUFA is needed in critical cellular structures, and thus the term "Essential".

Now, the term "deficient" is different, and requires a definition of what Sufficiency means. First, we do not know if these EFA deficient people are actually truly deficient in absolute amounts of cellular PUFAs.

In other words, they may be eating a PUFA deficient diet relative to the general population, and their levels of cellular PUFA concentrations may be lower than the general PUFA-overloaded population, but this is still enough PUFA for normal function.

This also highlights the fact that we cannot conflate the concept of "Dietary PUFA deficiency", which refers to a diet that supposedly contains less PUFAs than is thought to be needed, with the concept of Actual Cellular PUFA deficiency. Actual Cellular PUFA deficiency by definition is a bad thing. Not eating any PUFA may not lead to cellular PUFA deficiency for years.

This is where practically speaking, we are in agreement with what constitutes sufficient levels of PUFA. Although not 100% accurate, serum tests will show relative levels of PUFA in the organism. I think we will agree that 10-15% fatty acids as PUFA is considered "deficient" by the mainstream, but which is actually sufficient in practice.

Now, say someone is carrying around 20kg of fat, which is not uncommon. Say 40% of that fat is PUFA, which again, is not uncommon. Let's assume that 2g of PUFA a day is required, which is a reasonable assumption (some may even say that less is required). We have 0.4 * 20,000 / 2 = 4,000 days worth of PUFA. In reality of course, we have some level of PUFA intake, plus consistent mobilisation, especially when one is overweight.

The point being that modern people have accumulated a lot more PUFA than they need, and it will literally take years before they are truly PUFA deficient in the true sense of "not having enough PUFA to maintain normal cellular function".

Practically speaking, reducing any unnecessary PUFA consumption is wise. Some PUFA is needed, and people will need to experiment with how much that amount is. For some, maybe 2 eggs a day is more than enough. For others, a period of near zero intake is good (this is what I did BTW -- basically 6 months with a heavily restricted diet, and then adding some back again).

People should keep an open mind though, and not get caught with the idea that less PUFA is better. If they start to see the classic symptoms of PUFA deficiency like poor hair and skin, they may think about adding a couple of whole food PUFA sources (again, eggs and seafood come to mind). I say this because of cases on this forum of people who were trying to avoid PUFA at all costs, and found that being somewhat-but-not-too militant was the way to go. I will call out my aussie bru @m_arch again (who is a lean young man BTW, and thus may not be carrying around that much PUFA stores to begin with)

----

In regards to the the cell culture study on keratinocytes. It showed that keratinocytes would rapidly divide, and subsequently have less and less PUFA when kept in a fat-free medium. This tells us about cellular division rates, in a tissue type that is meant to divide very quickly, but does not say how this can apply to other cells in the body.

Can we say the same for a neuron, which doesn't divide and grow much at all? Or a liver cell? The fact is that we don't know. "Optimal cell division" may be a metric of success for epithelial cells, but it certainly isn't for a neuron that needs to fire fast and frequently. And of course, nothing other than cell division and fatty acid composition was studied -- just because no weird fatty acids were found, doesn't imply that the skin cell was functioning optimally by other metrics.

As an aside, Mead Acid is 20:3(n-9) is technically more peroxidisable than linoleic acid 18:2. The fact that the body tries to make PUFAs with more double bonds when they are not present in the diet for long enough, is a sign that the body wants to make PUFAs with more double bonds than just two. This can be interpreted as the body trying to seek balance (more fatty acid double bonds) using the only way that it knows possible.

----

@Mjhl85 Many have found what I say to be both useful and interesting, including a couple of commenters in this thread. I sell nothing, I do not pretend to be a doctor, and if called to comment, will comment for the fun of it.

.....

 

[Matt1951]

Tyw, thank-you for your excellent posts. Keep up the great work.

 

[raypeatclips]

I even implemented some of his suggestions and improved my health tremendously.

Which suggestions did you implement?

 

[Tarmander]

One problem is that I am not a doctor, and thus am not qualified to give medical advice. Even if I was, I would not be able to give that advice on an internet forum. I am thus not able to elucidate the exact mechanisms by which a medical practitioner would qualify that context (many ways -- questionnaires, patient monitoring, blood work, genetic analyses, esoteric nonsense, etc ...)

All someone like me can do, is to give vague hints at possible routes of experimentation. The example of circadian timing has been raised, whereby I claim some evidence to show that insulin sensitivity is greater in the morning, and thus carbohydrates can be shifted to the morning. This is a simple experiment, and user @m_arch shows one example of running this -- How The Sugar Industry Shifted Blame To Fat

This is an example of "Take what you like and leave the rest". If something I said is useful, that's OK. If it's not useful, at least it's some entertainment .

I do not try to help people, that I am very clear about (and if people notice, I do not make a post unless it is in response to something else -- like this thread, which has my username in the title ...).

Yet, I have not shied away from criticism. I have raised many direct mechanical processes, which by definition, is inviting falsification. If a mechanic is falsified, I say, "this is wrong". On the same token, when I am called to respond to a mechanic which I deem false, I will say, "this is false, because XYZ" (just like I did in my most recent post above).

How the narrative of a forum post is interpreted, is up to the reader. That much I cannot control in a medium like an online forum.

One-on-one with at least voice and video is a different story, and I think those who have had those interactions with me have inevitably found a much more individualised (and informal) conservation .

.....

Fair enough. If you don't feel this is the place to be more direct, open, or try and help people because of some liability or safety issue, I can respect that. Like I said, I do enjoy your posts.

 

[jaa]

I'm stating my perspective as I see it. Call it whatever you like.

Ad hominen. You should take a page of haidut's book actually refuted his claims rather than stating vague feelings and interpretations of what you think of tyw.

 

[Mjhl85]

Ad hominen. You should take a page of haidut's book actually refuted his claims rather than stating vague feelings and interpretations of what you think of tyw.

Another thing I learned from Dr. Peat is to rely on my inner voice. That's my sense, my instinct. Your categorizing of it for better or for worse doesn't change what it is.
In this case I'm either wrong or right and there's nothing you lose if you believe for her to be right and only insight to gain if I'm right. It seems you even realize that
by finding an actual refutation by haidut which I already believed to be true any way. So stepping in to say "ad hominen" means absolutely nothing other than reflecting your
feelings about another's sense of a particular person.

 

[AJC]

Editing to say nevermind, kept reading through the thread and found the answer

 

[jaa]

Another thing I learned from Dr. Peat is to rely on my inner voice. That's my sense, my instinct. Your categorizing of it for better or for worse doesn't change what it is.
In this case I'm either wrong or right and there's nothing you lose if you believe for her to be right and only insight to gain if I'm right. It seems you even realize that
by finding an actual refutation by haidut which I already believed to be true any way. So stepping in to say "ad hominen" means absolutely nothing other than reflecting your
feelings about another's sense of a particular person.

That's a bit convenient and hypocritical. You are trashing tyw's advice as meaningless while offering your own "insight" as some kind of freeroll. No. If tyw has useful things to say, then listening to you is a loss.

 

[Mjhl85]

That's a bit convenient and hypocritical. You are trashing tyw's advice as meaningless while offering your own "insight" as some kind of freeroll. No. If tyw has useful things to say, then listening to you is a loss.

No. It's only evident by what you discover. You answered your own question, therefore my insight became relevant based on that discovery.
It doesn't matter how you felt about it if it reflects what's true.

 

[jaa]

You're not making sense.