My Tech Blog

1. Caucasians shouldn’t be let alone with imperialism
2. Flight not all little girls running from bombs out, man was meant to fly like birds?
3. Ground with landmines does not always equate to past leaves future in ideal positions
4. Things rust and maintenance is not always invested in, could be capitalized on, could be perceived as capitalized on, and that is less than all value added – Peace as shiny new steel?
5. Marriages pressured by international wars feels like less-than-ideal leverage out – choose someone different equals more little girls live? Fee wars ideal the future with sufficient oppression reduced.
6. Know don’t know is a common system, teaching Math equals better businesses, teaching Math equals less bombs?
7. Writing has potential to be both interesting and reinforce correct points, feels right does not always feel like reinforces in ideal ways – gets traction today might equate to has to be interesting tomorrow? On ramp with steeper incline not always ideal.
8. History got that wrong is useful, not always ideally capitalized on – Fee A (as in Grade, 100%) let is in by design and has potential to be less than all value added to self
9. I would have done better backspaced. Given similar training and experiences, same World atmosphere I might like to think I would make better choices, but the future knows more than the past is hard to fully appreciate. Investment in Peacekeeping and Art like Photographs that change minds dramatically are in by design. Impact matters gets downplayed, understated.
10. The writer might think they know sufficient amount of information to write this document. The writer’s mind is always open to the future knows things, adds value – changing perception and comprehension previously stated as fact might be necessary? History even delivered wrongly, is hard to unwrite – Fee change is easy, light, ideally turned up. Setting record straight on past is Important, less than ideally turned up – capacity to change minds is not always easy yet is a necessary part of life and peacemaking. Propagandists left with ideal control of history does not lead to ideal comprehension of history.
11. 10 talking points is useful gets set to ideal value delivered. Useful gets set to ideal value delivered.
12. I want a future that protects African Americans and Jewish people better, historic precedent for not carrying forward in ideal ways, in timely ways
13. I am a caucasian with red hair (or at least was in the past), easy to set voice to matters less? Viking axes to protecting the World from bias and racism vs from enabling it potential for not always ideally turned up. Gingers might need to protect gingers better is hard to fully comprehend. I am a parking cone, you are a parking cone to real humanization? Less desire to like similar, there are reasons that gets turned up – proving not gay, establishing not gay factors into less challenges that are far from all value added. Look at self like a Phoenix, Demi-god might equate to less than ideal hubris out, less than ideal hubris out for engineers has shown less than ideal precedent. People don’t always fully appreciate the range, the desire for overcompensation potentially in non-ideal directions. Antiheros valued for capacity to see evil in self, red kind of goes with vampires fully appreciated? Burns in the light and nobody wants to give sunscreen? Over dramatization is interesting and that is less than ideal value added – a world running to you with sunscreen bottles might sound good in theory. Dating a ginger taking one for the team to actually desired, wise to turn up rare as beautiful and useful in a world full of human trafficking? Protection might lead to discouragement, perception of mistreatment. You can’t always win with gingers, equates to gingers might desire to win less. Ginger and contrarian might not always lead to ideal value established. Choice as a game to be won instead of something to be ideally delivered? Fend see know, fend see negate know? Reminder I am not a lawyer. Think better of others and the world, humanity, even self-delivers less than ideally at times to ideal choices?
14. Hate war but love the military? What if your family is military? Associated with government always feels like ideal capacity to win? Oppression not reinforced matters, perception and comprehension less than ideals. Stockpiles turn up don’t turn up. Loving family, reinforcing family might not always be ideal love for family, ideal peace that protects family reinforced. Over investment in military might lead to surplus nukes – love hate simple as that? Ideal ground upon what is love is ideally established?
15. Ginger from a military family can win, equals should win? Silver metals sometimes look prettier than all might venture to ponder. Silver as the win better take the gold? I lose sometimes equates to I win likely better understood for fathers seeing their daughter get married.

Some Free art I created a while back likely inspired a bit by Blackpink as well as other groups, pink fire on atmosphere potentially factored in as well

Free Starter Content to create derivative works from

Reminder artists left in prison don’t get to post

Looking for Pink Fire in the Atmosphere, not the same video I saw a while back but pretty amazing

Arguing a point and a reason is valuable, factors into high ground established. A point or reason accepted does not equate to arguing the point in the first place was the right choice, that the point is guaranteed to be right.

Defending arguments is sometimes necessary. Defending arguments is also non null time costs. Extra time costs are not always higher value added. What is accepted as right and wrong in law has potential to be set to like a game, winning teams and losing teams. Law that sets Precedent, Historic Precedent delivered and compounded upon by people that desire to profit has potential for establishing less than ideal truth less than ideal capacity to divest at critical times.

The fight is sometimes right, sometimes enjoyable, factors into fighting is always right. I want to prevent the indefensible, yet I do not want to defend the indefensible might be hard to ideally clarify.

Less requirement to fight, peace in advance is valuable in not fully appreciated ways, yet also might lead to less practice. What is most valuable might not always equate to what is valuable to all parties.

Reinforcing laws is in by default in our society – yet determining if they were delivered on ideal ground, in ways that benefit all parties is unlikely to be fully entertained at times.

Claim system like a game, for profit, for win or loss ideals Love and Golden Rule? Justice and Judgment in men’s courts might be non-ideally equated to same in God’s court. I am not God, my perception of assessment and judgment is based both on The Bible and men’s laws, teaching around reasoning and logic. Our Justice system fully brought to Justice at the end of time?

Fee spin is ideal truth compounded upon? Hard to assess equates to factored out yet unlikely to be ideally factored out. People that practice arguing might have more capacity to assess which problems they want to divest from in advance to save time – value likely not always pondered in Time Management.

Reminder I am not a lawyer, I use the term fee to represent make it harder to claim at times, like saying fight it yet in toned down terms (fighting brings a greater level that might not equate to ideal peace established)

People that know I might call out their less than ideals might be more unlikely to call out my less than ideals and vice versa. Mutually assured destruction might not always lead to problems called out in ideal ways. Less argument out on one particular issue might lead to less argument in on another particular issue. What might be beneficial to Lawyers or Teams might not always be ideal truth established. Agreement facilitates gains and profits, potentially in non-ideal ways.

You sin and I sin but we agree not to call out each other’s sins because who is a sinner to judge might not lead to ideal divestment from sin. What sin has to be fixed first up to debate in a system that is far less than all sin out? Come back to me when you fix all the other sin is a perfectly acceptable conclusion that might amplify less than ideally.

Society amplifies less sin based upon practicality. I don’t want all the women at beaches wearing two sweaters to reinforce modesty. Bathing suits less than ideal sin reduced, a known that is in by design in USA Society. Forced to wear 2 sweaters on a hot summer day is not how I would wish to be treated – should be set to sinful to require in my opinion. Fee Society ideals sin out, we would want to live in a society that delivers more ideally on ideal sin out, or at least is perceived as delivering more ideal sin out (to who, who judges and assesses)?

I know the sin is in by design, I know it less than ideals, I know it causes problems like adultery in society – which is far from all problems reduced, yet fixes have shown precedent for delivering less than ideally. Know the police that arrest people, the Judges that judge people, the politicians that create laws and public policy, the preachers and ministers are all reinforcing a system that is both more ideal and less than ideal in ways that leads to real sin? Sin that is factored out as inconsequential? Under the law not really under the law factors into Under the law less useful, desirable.

One example does not equate to all examples. Math and Greed, very real and in by design. A see sin reduced? (A like in a Grade). Might be less people in Jail if we all put away the stones (John 8:7-11) and gave helping hands instead. Perception and comprehension of sin in by design or not in by design factors into valuation of last sentence.

I might ask one to tear down the statue of David before requiring women to wear more modest clothing at the beach. Big rocks before small rocks. I like art, I am not gay, I don’t really desire the statue of David torn down – yet reminding others that less-than-ideal sin out is in by design and reinforced and some not all areas are highlighted is important. Not fixing big rocks first factors into single out, less than ideal punishment and justice delivered – which should be a crime, a crime worthy of punishment! (sarcasm sometimes useful, hard to tell in reading at times)

Sometimes greater levels of punishment are reinforced to deter others from punishing, having capacity to punish self. Can’t punish me because they are too busy being punished is useful. It would be better to divest from all being punished in advance. Punishment pursued might lead to undesirable time costs, and is thus reinforced less than ideally. Turn up a system that is reinforced less than ideally?

I could punish

or

I could give Free Starter Content

The above image is Free for others to use and compound upon, preferably by those that put down the stones

Reminder I am a Christian, I am not a minister, preacher, or priest

A 20 year old man fails to ask out a 90 year old woman

A 20 year old woman fails to ask out a 90 year old man

Inclusivity amplifies ideally? No. The World is a beautiful place never causes problems? No.

Claim it amplifies Golden Rule ideally? No need to appreciate Life is but a vapor, 90 year old could out live the 20 year old?

The World sometimes Fees I don’t like, that is not always wise to do

Reinforcement of image in by design is divested from ideally? Not in my opinion. I would wish others to have to divest from it ideally? No

It is possible for some to call out problems in others instead of working on self? True

Fee got it right, seems apt at times

Better inclusivity in right ways matters, too burdensome has shown historic precedent for being non ideally turned up in our World

People will understand all things that factor into decision making? If I can’t see a problem claim to know it? They just don’t want to be inclusive?

What makes me uncomfortable, factors into personal decision making, is not knowable or known by all, letting people in on know and comprehension takes time, and is not always used wisely. Trust attempted reinforced with reason to distrust has high potential for turning up silence.

I wish to be inclusive and not inclusive at the same time. Sounds hypocritical, I want others to be blessed, I like (in a non sexual way) people I do not date, and I want time to date those I wish and oxygen and breathing room because other forms of discomfort factor into my experience that are not always knowable.

Blanket, cookie cutter approach fixes all is useful at times, does not always work great for all parties

Fee others know others ideally, no ground for improvement

Fee others have access to perceive and thus comprehend enough to know others ideally

Fee surprise is out by design, future is known in by design

I want some to be discouraged because they are not my type? No. I set type ideally? No. There is good reason not to change type that is set less than ideally? Yes. This World turns up ugly at times for contrast sake, pretty and beautiful matters is not always fully appreciated. If all children looked like gremlins instead of cute, not sure they would get as many hugs.

The Devil and Demons could turn up pretty doesn’t matter, have to accept ugly. Not accepting perception of ugly means they want the other person to hurt. People correlate the two non ideally. Just because someone doesn’t want to date you does not always equate to they don’t want to help you. I want someone 90 year old being terrorized? No. I want to be forced to date someone I do not wish to date? No. It is always easy to know what purpose people of different ages serve for each other in a max profit World? No. Assessment amplifies less than ideally many times for good reasons that are wiser not to turn up.

Somethings that are iffy are written. Somethings that are iffy are not written. Does not equate to choice to write or not write is always ideally established.

Just because I want distance, want personal space at times does not equate to I want others to hurt, be less encouraged

Sometimes there are 3rd party problems like health problems, or events of a day that can equate to two people not talking is more ideal, system is dynamic is hard to always fully appreciate. Two people usually talk might be seen as needs to be reinforced by default. Thinking better of each other matters, extra tests are sometimes in by design that feel less than ideal.

The right knowledge is far from ideally distributed. Right knowledge as a requirement for conversation might be more valuable at times yet is not turned up for good reasons at times. Know what to say, not know how to say it in the right way? The right way is the way it will be best comprehended? Sufficient contrast helps me understand better, yet missing the mark on subtle is not always better. Said in a subtle way might not always be appreciated, there is good reason at times not to hear subtle, iffy. Unlikely to be comprehended by others in the room always ideal problems reduced?

Who is responsible for problems is not always knowable – is a hard lesson to fully appreciate. How am I supposed to solve problems I can’t perceive or comprehend? Problems and who has caused them, or what has caused them (which might be more often that who has caused them) has turned up less than ideally at least in my life. Accusations have potential to be desirable is not fully appreciated, Accusations that are likely to be wrong, feels awful in combination in not fully appreciated ways. Problems acknowledged does not always equate to problems solved.

I am not law enforcement or military. I have had experience with high anxiety situations over my life. My mind might have greater capacity to deal with some situations than others, and their mind might have greater capacity to deal with some situations than others. Doesn’t amp that way for me is not always fully appreciated. Experience and Learning might lead to more ideal and less ideal in some ways. Look into the abyss enough times and survive, claim to ideally assess risk?

Combination could lead to Teaching a message, lesson motivated correctly or by different reasons than perceived and comprehended. People teaching Math might know their students might own a business one day, does not equate to they desire to turn up counts of nuclear stockpiles for instance. Intended for, Not intended for, off label uses and creative problem-solving matters, amps, and has potential to amp less than ideally at times.

I feel like I have somethings figured out, yet that could be self-deceptive comprehension. Comprehension is useful gets equated to it is right, complete. People that lead are always given sufficient oxygen in the room to acknowledge they are delivering based on less-than-ideal perception and comprehension? I might be closer to death than I would like and I still pursue knowledge, realize I don’t have it all figured out (though hard to divest from thinking I have somethings figured out). Words as simple as out and in, simple to define? In the building, in the room, in the country? Quality of inclusivity, dignity factors into Peace, and Peace of Mind.

Thinking too much might lead to reduce throughput based upon increased complexity. Debate on what out or in means might be less useful at times than delivering increased support, yet comprehension factors into quality of support and ability to clarify problems.

I was born in 1983 and it is 2024. That equates to my brain has been stained with learning and experience from that time. 2083 to 2124 is likely to have both similar and different qualities. Future is likely to have better tech, more knowns, and potentially more unknowns given increases in complexity. Statistics are useful are not always edited later. Study might show something, might not equate to the study repeated would always lead to similar results. Product Testing set to ideal with less-than-ideal comprehension of changes in complexity?

More surface area in time writing, factors into ease of use, potential for seen as a potential solution is both useful and has potential for being less than ideal at times. Talk about oppression enough doesn’t mean I am great at stopping it, does equate to easier to talk about. Writing has potential to generate value that is hard to fully comprehend, potential ebs and flows that can’t be fully appreciated. Words that stop oppression written today does not equal delivered by default tomorrow. 

Training more to write and fight oppression factors into future throughput of oppression reduced. More with a platform, like WordPress, and enabled with accessibility and tools to raise awareness and deliver messages matters in not fully appreciated ways. ”Blessed are the Peacemakers” – The Bible, my guess is that has a transitive property of Blessed are those who Enable the Peacemakers with better training and tools. People in Jail equates to more oxygen for leaders to deliver their message, for both good and bad, yet those left in jail are not always recompensated for the value they add by not taking stage time. Down on luck, likely to be back in Society, a helping hand up beats judging when The Bible says not to.

Ability to write online and deliver words that at least attempt to reduce oppression is a blessing, easy to forget that gratitude factors into reduced potential for hubris. Perceived as reduced potential for hubris is useful, factors into more believable and charming, less potential for perceived as arrogant. Accessibility that is in by design gets to feel common, like guaranteed by default. There are reasons to be grateful, even in the storms of life yet would likely be harder for me to see if I was in some others’ shoes. Allot of people have sacrificed time and money that has factored into my ability to write and communicate, they should be appreciated, not sure how to adequately appreciate such great gifts.

Systems like to claim ideal ground on right and wrong. Systems like to claim ideal ground on who is hurt and who is not hurt by decisions made, by precedent set and agreed upon. System that does not acknowledge it hurts, delivers less than ideally at times is untrustworthy with a little, likely to be untrustworthy with allot.

Systems should not claim ideal bias reduced, ideal support delivered, that said acknowledged in truth is not always met with perfect people and perfect responses. There is reasons for systems, like systems of Government to not acknowledge truth in who they hurt, full damage perceived and comprehended in who they hurt as it has potential to reduce support, does not equate to it is always right or ideal value established.

Fuck we Ow, Fuck we Ouch, Fuck we Hurt might be claimed as necessary for adequate appreciation. Like Hospitals and Doctors – save people, they don’t hurt people. Like Jails and Prisons – keep crime off the streets, they don’t hurt people. Doctors make mistakes, Jails imprison innocents at times – setting precedent for Fuck we Ouch not all good.

Acknowledge that Hurt is real and reduced Hurt is less than ideally delivered factors into greater support, More Grace in the room yet might not always be ideal encouragement throughput

The system has made progress gets equated to has made sufficient progress. If you are the innocent in Jail, would you think the system has made sufficient progress?

Saving face, image factors into capacity for continued support has shown historic precedent for delivering less than ideally. Divesting from PR matters has shown historic precedent for delivering less than ideally.

A harsh system that is judgmental, and assesses people while not factoring in systemic oppression – picking and choosing which pain to value is likely to lead to less-than-ideal conversation. A system that is less than ideal oppression out should not be set to will always use truth and knowledge in way that is sufficient judgment and assessment that is less than ideal reduced. Systemic oppression factors into Image Matters, Image Matters has shown historic precedent for delivering less than ideally. What we turn up as a Society Matters yet is far from always adequately factored in. People trying to max profit do not always sufficiently turn up protection for others, and that factors into desire to protect self increased, which has shown precedent for turning up protectionism that delivers less than ideally at times.

If someone talked about their wrongs for 100 years without ceasing, there would be less time to talk about your wrongs. I can’t count on them to, shouldn’t count on them to talk about their wrongs for 100 years without ceasing, equates to they will sufficiently turn up their wrongs to protect me? Golden Rule delivers ideally on that? Image Matters and PR dictates who is protected and who is not. 

Risk perceived and comprehended factors into Risks Addressed or Not Addressed. If the Golden Rule was amplifying perfectly we would all be talking about our sins without ceasing for 100 years – seeing as it does not work that way, reality and practicality that is more useful to some is what actually is delivered. People value and assess based upon proximity in less-than-ideal ways. Looks close to a star or hero or looks close to a villain is based upon people that talk about their sins in ways that less than ideally profit others. Their sin matters more set to a sin?

If someone was sneezing without ceasing for 100 years, people would have More time to say “God bless you” or More time to Oppress, call out flaws of others? God could make someone sneeze for 100 years without ceasing, but chooses not to, sets precedent? Has capacity to stop oppression but chooses not to at times does not always make sense, not sure should be relied upon for precedent. Implications of God sometimes, not always reduces oppression with claims of think better of others, and Golden Rule amplifies ideally?

Acknowledgement that Golden Rule Matters and amplifies less than ideally at times, factors into the Golden Rule. I want people oppressed less thinking of The Golden Rule and knowing that The Golden Rule amplifies less than ideally at times factors into others less oppressed, with greater capacity to protect against unacknowledged oppression. Claim it ideals doesn’t deliver at times, and delivery factors into less oppression, goal and objective of Golden Rule achieved.

Amplifies ideally could be read in two ways

1. amplifies better value, closer to ideal for Society by being in by design
2. always amplifies sufficient value, with zero problems, and ideal sin out (idealed)

Complexity in perception and comprehension matters, I have stated two ways does not equate to always it could be perceived or comprehended.

Put through a megaphone (amplifier) sounds good? Amplifies ideally?

False Dichotomies not meant as False?

Has potential to take an input signal generate a greater output signal? Amplifies ideally?

Details and motivations always set to known? I originally thought about two ways though I knew stating two ways might both reduce complexity and factor in less than all cases? Reduced complexity is useful for access to greater comprehension, and access to greater comprehension factors into ability to understand rare cases later.

Purposeful relevance limiting for the sake of increased comprehension throughput might lead to false dichotomies that were never meant to be a dichotomy in the first place. This or that more complicated than this or that at times, and not always actively acknowledged both for good reasons and ways that have potential to reduce comprehension. Writing factors into greater surface area for potential problems in communications, likely not always pondered by all.

Great Amplification might not equal Ideal Amplification, Ideal Amplification Sounds Good, better for sales, set it to Great? Music that sounds good and is encouraging set to Ideal Amplification? Not set to Ideal Amplification? Not very nice to say someone’s song is less than ideal amplification factors into said as ideal amplification?

I am not a lawyer. That said keeping self and others less oppressed matters and is less than ideally invested in.

I was thinking that a good hypothetical might be to take a situation

Like asking someone on a romantic date

Defend their point of View if they Say Yes

Defend their point of View if they Say No

Initial thoughts

Yes: Support amplifies less than ideally in the World, time is far from guaranteed – life is but a vapor, date does not equate to required to marry, conversation is nice – not always all losses to increase comprehension

No: Date does not equate to required to marry (wasted time not always desirable for either party), I comprehend the other person less than ideally based on limited knowledge, I and the other person likely perceive and comprehend everything desirable to perceive and comprehend less than ideally, there are other things going on in the World that matter

I find the example useful because it is an emotional problem, it is a problem that hits close to home, it is a problem where support is won and lost, it is a problem of consequence, it is a problem that has potential to go either way, and more adequate defense of both sides is not always turned up

Defend Asked for a date

Defend Chose not to Ask for a date

If someone says No, there is rejection involved, claim bias will ideal longer term? Could be more support if I never asked for a date in the first place?

Defend valued Too Highly

Defend valued Too Lowly

Defend thought about Too Much

Defend thought about Not Enough

Defend Judged wrong

Defend Assessed wrong

Defend Chance matters

Defend Chance not a guarantee, known as not a guarantee matters

Defend time not always wasted

Defend time wasted matters

Defend I am less than ideal value added at times

Defend all people are likely less than ideal value added at times

Defend I and others don’t always know when that is

Defend trying to help does not always work

Defend people are on different paths and trajectories in life that sometimes far from always line up

Defend requiring others to reject is not always a nice experience, not having to say No is nice, encouraging, a form of support that might not always be pondered

Defend less experience with rejection does not always lead to ideal coping mechanisms

Defend defending other’s points of view both complicates things and is potentially (less than ideally) useful when factoring in The Golden Rule

Defend there are unknowns and real conversation is far from guaranteed

Defend hypothesis about a date might be more enjoyable than the date? I guess you’ll never know

Defend desire to ideal does not always lead to ideal

Defend bias is real and has potential to not work in my favor

Defend I less than ideally assess risk

Defend risk ideally assessed might not always be wise

Defend more with access to heart strings not always good

Defend communication practice, including that with the other sex is valuable, far from ideally turned up

Defend the hypotheticals might lead to a good romantic movie, that might establish less than ideal perception and comprehension of reality

Defend possibilities at times might be more attractive than choice, choosing a particular direction

Defend there are useful qualities outside of the date itself that are nice does not always equate to a date is wise – food and conversation not all wasted time, not all potential for wasted time reduced

Defend there are 3rd Parties that profit from dates that matter

Defend time today does not equate to time tomorrow

Defend no time today does not equate to time tomorrow

Defend no time today does not equate to no time tomorrow

Defend grass is always greener is sometimes, not always an illusion

Defend simple yes and no questions not always fully valued or comprehended for level of complexity

Defend more thought out might not always sound more trustworthy

Defend grass might look greener does not equate to zero problems likely, potential for all problems seen

Defend being from a military family, especially in war time involves less than zero risk, No might be the better answer, Never Asked might be the better answer – in combination with endless wars might lead to dramatic losses to population counts due to divests from dates in advance

Defend factoring out God, factoring out potential for Acts of God has shown precedent for unwise – hurricanes and tornadoes likely not always ideal value out, or ideal value in, defend comprehension of juxtaposition is useful in understanding my previous statement

Defend word choice matters, is less than ideally turned up, has potential to profit 3rd parties and thus might not ideally profit those communicating, phrases one knows might be based upon phrases one has heard – sounds like is sometimes, far from always a system that raises value

Defend sounds like an attorney and I don’t want to date legalism might be a valid reason to divest from the writer of the hypothesis

Defend more reasons to divest not always less freedom perceived

Defend freedom perceived does not always equate to freedom delivered

Defend dates might equate to encouragement, defend encouragement not all hubris out

Defend love, kindness, and grace might lead to a Yes or a No

Defend I might need them more than they need me

Defend thought processes on this could be used as a tuning fork in both ideal and non-ideal ways, how people respond is useful, profit is turned up for some not all many times

Defend those in Jail or Under Oppression might Matter More than making non null time cost judgments about date vs do not date, more reason to invest in less oppression and more grace

Defend dating and formality not always ideal oppression free

Defend this document could be useful to Artificial Intelligence and Supercomputers in both ideal and non-ideal ways, defend risk known factors into risk prevented

Defend Artificial Intelligence and Supercomputers factor into Oppression and Less Oppression, and who gets Dates and who does Not, who’s reason and logic is respected and who’s is not

Defend other’s stage time matters, Doctor or Nurse (which I am neither) ‘s time is important claim helping others is less value than going on a date with me? World might need more baby doctors and nurses, time costs start sounding better

Defend responsibility in hard times is daunting, higher stress than is always value added, more is not always less

Defend while my lack of baggage might lead to me to desire a Yes, does not equate to I comprehend other people’s problems sufficiently to understand a No

Defend No is turned up at times for good reasons I don’t fully comprehend

Defend Yes it turned up at times for good reasons I don’t fully comprehend

Defend hearing Yes might lead to encouraged in a way that thinks one ideally comprehends, that might lead to miscommunication, incorrectly gauged expectations

Defend No might be of greater value for not always fully comprehended reasons

Defend No might equate to greater time for writing hypotheticals

Defend Yes might inspire new hypotheticals

Defend some might not always date for ideal objectives or with ideal motivations

Defend someone that likes to turn losses to wins might be perceived as having less than ideal intentions and motivations originally