I agree.

I'm more particular about some distinctions of meaning, than some other people are.

So, for example, sometimes I'll try to be precise, so as to be understood rather than misunderstood.

It's probably also true that I'm "very sensitive", as you say; but that's beside the point. I just wanted to distinguish meanings. Sometimes such distinctions are important.

Don't feel bad.

That's fine. I wouldn't have you acknowledge something as true if you think it false, nor as false if you think it true.

It's more than grammar; there really is an effective difference in meaning, to me at least.

Anything can be done to people once they are persuaded to "believe in" things ("believe in" usually involves more "faith" than "believe" (as in "believe that") does).

But when they are asked to "believe that" something is true, that's more likely a factual matter in which fact-checking and reason may be brought to bear and would count for something.

"Believe that" is simple and straightforward. But when "believe in" is used, if "faith" is heavily involved in it, anything goes!

No, I don't want you to say you're sorry. I'm often 'not good' at forgiving people (or, 'terrible' at forgiving people), so the whole apology thing doesn't work well for me. Acknowledgements are usually good though. Like, for example, I wronged a friend a few years ago, just because I said a wrong thing that was probably taken personally the wrong way, and I desperately want to explain it, and "acknowledge" to her that I was wrong and she was good. But I don't want to "apologize" to her because then she might feel burdened with figuring out whether to "forgive" me, which she might not really feel like doing.

It seems that acknowledgements are much simpler than apologies or apology-forgive pairs.

That does appear either true or similar to the t***h. Trump has been operating from a privileged position (effectively, in practice, nearly immune from accountability), and that's un-"American".

Good for you, if you did all that. Did you ask your blood brother what happened when Columbus landed and how he and his crew treated the natives there?

In the 2nd post on page 21, you quote 3 lines from me, then you say:

"I need to be detailed to present facts about what I've written here.
Why not, we are talking about common bond, and objectives. Corporation is a great example. This won't fit into your mind, cause you believe people must depend on the government for handouts instead of earning for themselves."

So that may be why you didn't find it when you were looking for the phrase "I believe". You were saying "you believe people must depend ...".

When you say:

"This won't fit into your mind, cause you believe people must depend on the government for handouts instead of earning for themselves."

it is demeaning, somewhat as if were to say (in some other context) some presumptuous thing about your mind, such as:

"This won't fit into your mind, because you believe anyone who shoots a black person must be a patriot." as if I knew that, and as if that were all your mind amounted to.

You could be right about another thing, though, which is that I'm (maybe) more sensitive to insults than most people are. Wh**ever about that, even so, you had oversimplified very much, and made a wrong assumption.

"trite"?

There's a difference between "believe in" and "believe". Your original phrase which I quoted did not have the "in".

That's why I included them in my list. That's when I wrote: "So, for example, if one native tribe made a violent attack on another, unnecessary to the first tribe's survival, then there was probably some terrorism involved." But maybe you weren't satisfied, that I didn't made them look evil enough compared with the invading European i*****l i*******ts who tried to wipe most of them out and ethnically cleanse the remainder. The behavior of Columbus's crew was worse than what had been going on before (in the part of the Americas where _they_ landed); you'd be wrong if you lump all the native American tribes together as mere savages; there was a wide variety of them and a wide variety of how their cultures worked; the encounter between Columbus's crew and the friendly natives on the island they landed on was described by Bartolome de las Casas and it was really awful and totally undeserved abuse upon the natives. Besides all that, the natives were here first and the Europeans were usurpers. The Europeans (not all of them, of course, but generally in the long-term effects they had culturally, especially in the Americas) were arrogant dehumanizers and usurping invaders. I'd say "disrespecting" but maybe "arrogant dehumanizers" already covers that part.

If you want to compare the great big groups culturally (native Americans in America and native Europeans in Europe), part of the European behavior to take into account is the Spanish Inquisition. Much earlier, while the native Americans were doing wh**ever they were doing, the Romans were crucifying Christians and various other people, primarily to terrorize whole groups of people.

(Addendum: If you want to know more about what the native Americans were like and the encounters between them and the European newcomers, you could read the book _1491_. I guess you won't; you're too busy saying things like "Obviously you have no idea at all". Thank you for the bit of information about Amerigo Vespucci, which is not what I had heard about him, but may be true, I suppose, anyway.)

Republicans can't KTST (or else they just DGAF). In the last few decades, most of the times a Republican got elected President (or became President somehow) within about 4 to 8 years there were a lot of criminal convictions against people in that p**********l administration. That hasn't happened so much for the Democrat p**********l administrations.

I'll be a Liberal in this post (and usually). The First American Terrorists: I would look back in time to before this was called "America". Anyone who used violence unnecessarily _might_ reasonably be considered a terrorist. So, for example, if one native tribe made a violent attack on another, unnecessary to the first tribe's survival, then there was probably some terrorism involved.

If it was necessary to the first tribe's survival, then, while the violent attack might still be a form of terrorism, I might just call it war.

Then, starting from the time this was called America, the First Terrorists _in_ America were the crew of Christopher Columbus and probably himself also, in the way they treated the natives.

Then, starting from the time people identified themselves as "Americans", the First American Terrorists were themselves (the "Americans"), and that occurred most of the times when they inflicted violence upon the Native Americans (called "Indians").

You wrote more, but this is as far as I read. I don't have much patience for being stereotyped like that.

If you use the phrase "I believe", you are in your area of expertise.

(That's because you're in a position to know your own mind better than anybody else does.)

If you use the phrase "you believe", you are in the other person's area of expertise.

(That's because the other person is in a position to know his/her own mind better than anybody else does.)

There's nothing wrong with trying to keep the v**e secure, as long as it doesn't stop legitimate v**ers from v****g.

So, no, I _don't_ disagree with _that_.

Stopping large numbers of legitimate v**ers from v****g (such as in the examples I described in two recent posts) _is_ definitely v**er-suppression.

Worse yet, pretending to attempt to keep the v**e secure, when the real purpose is to stop a large number of legitimate v**ers from v****g, is really bad v**er-suppression.

The burden of proof is:

on Kemp (in the first example) (40,000 legitimate v**ers stopped because he as secretary of state failed to register them for four years even after having been reminded of it, and so then they couldn't v**e in the e******n in which he was both controlling the e******n process (as secretary of state) and running in it for governor; and there were only miniscule numbers, if any at all, of actual v***r f***d uncovered);

and on Kobach (in the second example) (a few hundred thousand legitimate v**ers stopped, because he shipped out instructions to many secretaries of states telling them to ignore discrepancies in his purging system, in which most of his purge list _did_ have significant discrepancies, resulting in hundreds of thousands of legitimate v**ers being wrongly purged; and there were only miniscule numbers, if any at all, of actual v***r f***d uncovered).

I guess that you didn't really pay much attention to the examples I posted from the book.

This next part is satire:

You could make the v**e even more secure by not allowing _anybody_ to v**e, except Kemp to v**e for himself, Kobach or Trump to v**e for Trump, and Putin to v**e for Putin. There's nothing wrong with attempting to keep the v**e secure as long as it doesn't keep the important v**ers from v****g. (This is a satirical paragraph.)

The corporation as described is not necessarily a good thing; but you did describe it pretty well.

Your description of political parties is not so good. It reads like propaganda. Somebody could have written a similar description of the opposite political party, and it would be as true as this one was (if not more so).