Role Play Adaptability and Hmmm Aphasia

If you want to know what I think about being an activist, I don't feel flexible. But the catastrophic inducibility of some subversive information's affect is benign. It's common sense, or at least, it appears to be common sense. Remember cytoplasm? Remember trans fatty acids? We shouldn't treat science so badly after all, should we? I am a hungry from the microcosm. I want to hang out with a miniature proteins. Dude. I want to know, which molecules in the body are neo-conservative, or secret members of the federal reserve system which is also an invisible cancer. As far as I know, there is nothing federal about the nervous system. I am not calling that cancer forward, mind you, no, I just would like to identify it. The following is from the internets:

"Relating to the general government or union of the states; based upon, or created pursuant to, the laws of the Constitution of the United States.

The United States has traditionally been named a federal government in most political and judicial writings. The term federal has not been prescribed by any definite authority but is used to express a broad opinion concerning the nature of the form of government.

A recent tendency has been to use the term national in place of federal to denote the government of the Union. Neither settles any question regarding the nature of authority of the government.

The term federal is generally considered to be more appropriate if the government is to be viewed as a union of the states. National is used to reflect the view that individual state governments and the Union as a whole are two distinct and separate systems, each of which is established directly by the population for local and national purposes, respectively.

In a more general sense, federal is ordinarily used to refer to a league or compact between two or more states to become joined under one central government."

None of this is really important, or it gives me pause. There are a hundred differing observations, possible interpretations, and non-sequential hypotheses that go as ignored as bad habits. Bad bad habits, like breathing in poison for comfort. Some cancers are also romancers, or, they start out so. In the light of their dark we are constitutive mutants. We are a bunch of people I don't know well and wonder about. We are not my family but act like it. We are macrocosmically systemified to not feel that we are. So what? So so what, indeed.

Is it a problem if I choose not to believe in bacteria? If I turn a blind eye to glaucoma? If you cut me do I not? What do you call the distance between an open wound and a cypher? As in his eyes were like two cyphers, and he never touched a single dollar bill in his life. If you cut him he bled coinage. If you saw him he was wearing columns for suspenders and a skyscraper for a hat. If you begged from him he gave you suggestions disguised as fortunes. He said "spend your life _______." You held the fortune you could not translate and spent a life guessing. Will he go down in history? You mean down when you say down: He loves me, he loves me not...etc.

Our fresh wounds will always stupefy our sense of distances, and they so strangely seem to keep fresh for long periods. The action of metabolic repressors is found to be regulated by (passive voice) divisible systems similar to those regulating the action of inducers. I mean fear. Or are not found at all, if not, in which case, the role play arises at a locus far removed from the powers controlling the powers themselves. Fat chance, I know; but the manner of activity can merely be guessed, so what small wrong one already practices (active voice) is the best evidence of any locus at all. It follows that this reaction is more specific than no reaction, but perhaps more or less catalyzing. "I like it!"

To clarify, hmmm. Let's say the source (question of voice) is the negative vehicle from which all rides home are too dangerous to take. A negative result would not necessarily prove that the code of conduct is not universal; a safe ride home may only imply that it is. What kinds of specificity do you enjoy? How specific do you need your messenger to be in order to accept the invitation to be Him's passenger? I fail to see the logic. In other words; I too, dislike it.

O look, walls. O look, more walls. A direct approach in this instance is impractical, and our goal is to supply the center with a good view. Just not quite as corporate as, say for instance, a glass ceiling might. No, not that back aching give-a-hand bullshit Back in the cell, if I remember correctly, I could see all the way to the uniquely eternal. Conveyances of a restitution of a of one of the (other voice). I realize there is no schematic simpleton enough to leave heaven out. Least not the truly scholarly ones.

Alternatively, our approach may support the basis for continuous suffering, and that's not the goal at all. I don't worry about functions, so much as the goal of the body. So, in order to put the apparatus of correction to good use; we accept that death may be true (possible voice) and then we simply continue with our bridge building religion. We are more than structures of replication aren't we? No, not really. As far as love is concerned. Nearly all the secrets here are as synthetic as dreams. Isn't that lovely? God I think so.