/far from being smart, i'm playing: dumb-honest: because why would you automate diacritical distinctions, pretend it's orthography when it turns out it's a dyslexic protocol, and leave the rest to advert script of wriggly lines akin to the coca-cola script? english, with its lack of diacritical application, doesn't need the use of diacritical markings on top of ιota and ȷade... hardly a mishandling of writing 1; or the lower-case form of the corner stone, i.e. l.

far beyond the reaches of man's comfort
with the tri-
                          or rather: the watcher's angle...
there, is, no, objective experience...
    the argument for objecitivty is
like an engineering prospect for a dam,
(mind you, architecture
is not exactly exactly engineering
when it comes to building thresholds,
akin to dams, rather than buildings
worthy of an argument for a replica
continuum - the usual journalistic
       bravado: type ****, think later):
there are but two outlets for a use of
language, (a) using it,
or (b) asking technical questions
       in terms, rather on the basis of
usage...
              as a non-native speaker
(as one french undergraduate psychology
major pointed out): you're not,
a native speaker...
               fine...
                             but let's hear
what the "natives" of the anglosphere
talk about in america, or australia...
                 ****, me, are these natives?!
diversity is our conundrum,
    notably the variety of orthography
application in the english-speaking world,
without it raining down onto
the surd speech of writing...
           naked Adam!
                 just recently, or rather,
today... a girl writes to a mainstream
article about i wish i hadn't laughed
at him in bed, i.e.:
         i made a joke about the impact
of the cold weather...
       you know where this is going...
infertile *****?
        at the brothel one bulgarian *******
demanded my "castration"
leaving a comment
                    about the african phallus
being, on average, bigger than mine...
did i lose a hard-on?
              not really...
               this is how deep the freudian
madonna-***** complex goes...
    it's fair game when you're paying for
an hour... but having to invest in
a life, and hear this sort of *******?
sorry... no.
(italics, because i didn't want to end
                  it on an exclamation mark).
odd...
                sniff sniff...
                                          you smell that?
how can people talk during ***?
          i put on an imaginary gag during
*******...
                it's the monk's daily bread
to not talk...
                    how do people even manage
talking during ***?
      do the same ******* think
it worthwhile to talk while jogging
on a treadmill?!
                            or lifting weights?
talking is taboo in ***!
                   and that is the only taboo!
do you hear that?
           is that a woman moaning
and balancing on an onomatopoeia
   of (i feel pleased) when drinking a cup
of tea?!
                is there, really, a need to talk
while having ***?
              hour in a brothel and
then, you can tell all your secrets...
             to a ******* mallet's worth of latex.
i love ballet, but the audience just put me off,
that insatiable "need" to clap...
               upon every grand example
is like feeding off of a leech "prescribed"
                       to allow you comfort when
bleeding...
                    mind you, the royal albert hall
has terrible acoustics when it comes
to ballet...
                  am i watching a *******
ballet, or a tap-dance?
                       the floor is too hard...
           ponder, and hear a centipede...
            while the bucks fly off the astroturf
into the silent night, encouraged,
               by the coliseum mob...
                  and that is what has remained
of rome... the coliseum...
                             what was this
originally?
                    ah...
         as descartes reduced a person
                                             to a φ- / Θing,
well...  there is no objective experience,
only an observation...
                         but then again, there is,
a man holding a cup of tea, or a pain brush,
or typing on a keyboard,
  that is, an objective experience...
          the animated concerned with
   the inanimate...
                               but with regards to people?
when there are two animate examples
making the universe, finally, concise?
         reductionism to a punch?
subjectivity is the only medium that allows
experience to make firm rooting,
          of experience per se,
       noumenon, per se, jack in a box...
     hide & seek...
                          alternatively the phenomenon
and subsequent mimic / multiplication / χ  (chi)...
just collateral...
              passing by...
                             because why would
you apply orthography, i.e. diacritical marks
on only two letters, i.e. i and j?
                 the turks managed iota
like the greeks, i.e.            ι,
      so you could, technically, write j, as ȷ.
hey, pedantry of the use of language
          is my tux and bow-tie's worth of gala.