The nature of the flow of thought

An unusual individual has given free-willing consent to publishing this conversation. Some will be obsessed with XY’s and JS’s characteristics, identities and when all this happened – which is to miss other important things in this conversation.

Human thought/thinking is a sequence of ideas and assertions using language. Its flow depends both on ‘form’ and ‘content’. Errors in either or both of ‘form’ and ‘content’ lead to confusion.

Walker found this conversation fascinating, to say the least.

Context summary of this analysis of the flow of thought.

  1. It’s a conversation on a messaging app – unsanitised of spelling errors.
  2. XY and JS know each other pretty well.
  3. Ms B is XY’s daughter.
  4. XY initiates the conversation which lasts 12 minutes.
  5. JS is given conflicting and contradictory details about COVID-19 positivity.
  6. All or part of the conversation turns out to be ‘not important’ according to XY.
  7. JS does not see time spent as ‘unimportant’.
[11:26] XY: Ms B has to isolate as her flat mate has covid {The ‘subject’ is therefore Ms B having to isolate}

[11:26] XY: She went a shisha bar and caught it there {They refer to Ms B. Who went to a shisha bar? Naturally one will infer it was Ms B, as Ms B was the subject of the sentence. The sentence was NOT ‘the flat mate went to a shisha bar’}

[11:39] JS: Good! I warned about this. Everybody said its fine. As she is in your house you now have to shield. {Talking about Ms B quite clearly, the daughter of XY! JS assumed Ms B was at home with XY – corrected below.}

[11:40] JS: In last week of June I said lock down the country

[11:46] XY: She’s in BigCity {Confirming that their daughter Ms B is not in their house – and most certainly that it’s Ms B they’re talking about.}

[11:47 ] XY: She been there weeks {The context of this is that Ms B is in BigCity. XY is parent of Ms B. Highly unlikely that this is a reference to a flatmate after 11:39 and 11:46}

[11:57] JS: Oh.. so she’s not been in contact with you over the period? {Obviously, now this is about Ms B. Nobody is talking about the flatmate after 11:39 and 11:46.}

[12:00] XY: No she been in BigCity for a month now. {In the context after 11:39 and 11:46 it’s Ms B}

[12:01] JS: Any way, it serves her right!

[12:02] JS: Caught it? Does this mean she is proved as infected? {This question is about Ms B, obviously – certainly after after 11:39 and 11:46}

[12:02] XY: She moved back into her house share and the accommodation people said it was safe, plus she had work was. Her and BigBoy now isolating for 10 days. She ok , life has to go on , she can’t stay here forever

[12:03] XY: Her housemate. {This is a reference to a housemate. The person in question is still about Ms B. It was consistently so after 11:39.}

[12:03] JS: Yes or no please to the question!

[12:03] XY: Yes {This is ‘yes’ to ‘Does this mean she (Ms B) is proved as infected?’ This confirms it is Ms B and she is proved positive.}

[12:03] XY: Here her house mate has covid {New information. Ms B is still the object of the question}

[12:03] JS: Yes – means she had a test that proves she is infected. Is that correct? (Yes or no). {Still seeking clarification on Ms B and attempting to ensure no doubt that Ms B is actually positive.}

[12:03] XY: Yes {– It’s now 100% clear that Ms B is proved she is positive}

[12:03] JS: WTF!!!!!!

[12:04] JS: Send her my congratulations! {JS is obviously congratulating Ms B!}

[12:04] XY: The whole house under quarantined and anyone in contact with them.

[12:04] XY: She is waiting for her results {Now Ms B is ‘waiting on results’, yet it was 100% confirmed that she had a test that proved she is positive and infected 60 seconds earlier}

[12:05] JS: I’m not interested in the whole house. {Just confirming it is Ms B, to remove any final doubt or confusion}

[12:05] XY: There is 12 in the house , right now one is positive , 2 negative and the test are waiting for results {Says nothing more about Ms B}

[12:05] JS: Are you Vicky Pollard? You just said ‘yes’ to her being proved by a test as infected, yet she is waiting on results. This is totally ridiculous and contradictory. {It has to be. There is opportunity to clear it up but watch what happens next – deviation!}

[12:06] XY: Polly is infected {Irrelevant deviation. Ms B is the focus}

[12:06] XY: India is not infected {Totally irrelevant deviation}

[12:06] XY: Ms B is waiting results {So now Ms B who was just confirmed @12:03 as having had a test that proved she is positive is ‘waiting on results’. God knows how Ms B can be proved positive for a test she is awaiting results!}

[12:06] XY: How clear is that ???? {Totally clear that Ms B is waiting on results for a test which proved she was positive! This means there was no need to wait on results. Why have a test at all?}

[12:06] XY: One person in the house is confirmed infected {Random deviation again – now this seems to be a deliberate loss of focus on the main subject Ms B – and the now obvious contradiction.}

[12:07] JS: I am not interested in Polly or Dolly. I’ve asked about Ms B. You said she is proved as tested positive. Now you saying she waiting on results. RIDICULOUS! {The opportunity to say ‘Oh I was talking about the flatmate’, if perchance it was. But no – it was about Ms B}

[12:07] XY: Go back and read as you say {So JS is has got it wrong! XY is now confident that Ms B is not positive having confirmed it at 12:03}

[12:08] JS: No. You go back and read the specific questions and your ‘yes’ or ‘no answers. {Good. Why should JS waste time going in circles}

[12:08] XY: I am going for lunch {Escape. Sure – people need lunch – especially after putting themselves in a right mess.}

[12:08] XY: It’s not important {This is what people do, when their stupidity is exposed. It’s not important but the conversation about Ms B lasts 12 minutes! What it means by extension, is that JS’s 12 minutes is not important. Thankfully, JS wasn’t told ‘Sorry for wasting your time’, because ‘sorry’ gives nobody back their time.}

[12:08] JS: bugger off {Escape facilitated. Well done JS!}

Disclaimer & Guidance

The reading of posts on this blog is subject to the Terms & Conditions. Unpalatable truths and personal experiences may be told. Nothing posted on this blog is directed at any identified person. On occasions individuals are quoted anonymously. That does not mean that they have been identified to the world. Should any person or organisation reading this blog find something that makes them feel or know that they  are being referred to – any such perceived identification does not mean ‘identified to the world’. ‘Stupid‘ is an impish figment of my imagination who occasionally is allowed to pop up – and does not represent any known individual, individuals or groups. The treatment of  ‘Stupid‘ is not representative of the way people are treated in real life. Adverse inferences made are dismissed in advance.  

© 2019: The Captain's Watch, All Rights Reserved | Awesome Theme by: D5 Creation | Powered by: WordPress