Endward and Shortfailings As Presented by Entity
To begin, I would like to say that no names are sufficiently present as to be considered nouns. No nouns here are proper or are considered capable of verbs. As such, the presently speaking entity—as no nouns here are nouns, nor capable of verbs—cannot assert or make claims that yes and no are words. But what the entity can do is to put forth itself as entity into space, and title it so, Entity, according to abstraction, so that you can maintain an accurate account of the events that did not transpire (for your records), as they are told backwards to you as through via the sound of wind blowing accidentally through a metal pipe at Worksite 1—and in this form, you will have a clearer understanding of myself as superior in knowledge concerning what mandated objectivity is, as it represents truth objectives, including numerical constancies (such as 9), and further, the following verb will be inadmissibly re-performed (verblessly) to provide you a clearer picture of events as they occurred in your perception. Endward?
Entity, which shall henceforth represent itself by the numerical object 9, for safekeeping of ethical transparencies and easy identification for possible readerships, believes that in all probability, according to relevant unanswered questions, dreams were had by both parties, and no inappropriate verbs occurred. Based on a source text, which cannot be pointed at nor held accountable for speech, as it is without real physical form, 9 believes that the face, demeanor, and physical attributes of [XY] offer clear explanation for [XY’s] incapacity to dismantle appropriately desirable friendliness toward [X]. 9 defines desire in accordance with traditionally prescribed parameters of dreaming, for the purposes of this document. 9 is under the clear impression that grotesqueness has qualitative value in a report which cannot really support nouns as proper nouns, nor verbs as permissible. Without dramatizing queries of interest within undefinable scales of possibility, 9 presents that [XY] has male parts, and [X] has female parts, though neither of them are nouns, in the true sense, in the sense that they might apply verbs to existences in bodied form. Indeed, formlessness as argued by [XY] without speech permits us to conjecture formlessness for [X]. We believe that we can really justify using adjectives here, as there is no evidentiary basis that adjectives have modifiable relation to any act, not in question, in any case, as no verbs are verbs. Based on the face, demeanor, and physical attributes of [XY], 9 believes that [X] quite possibly had a stomach bug, ultimately.
9 is taking the time here to know and put forth easy knowledge that dreams do not always occur at mutual equilibrium between two dreamers, nor that all nouns are dreamers, nor that this information has anything to do with events that never locally transpired between [X] and [XY]. 9 also reminisces, however, that [X] herself has used adjectives on previous occasions, and even uttered words. [XY], predictably, in the easiest sense of predictable, doesn’t use words. Therefore, it is based on the face, demeanor, and physical attributes of [XY] that 9 is able to glean objectively to apathy. Although it is true that [X] energetically assumed into the space of this 9 that her stomach bug and subsequent verbal dilemma was causal, based on the spatial event of December 4th, in which 9 admits that [XY] did enact a gentle dilemma of a verb without his clothes on. That said, [X’s] lack of vomiting does not support her female assertion that her stomach bug was causally related to [XY’s] relationships to verbs. In fact, [XY] has a history of using verbs. Both [X] and [XY] seem to be on the same page about verbs, and their relative existence and nonexistence, according to [XY]. Based on [XY’s] face, demeanor, and physical attributes, 9 just isn’t clear that he had access to compromised verbs.
9 really has a fondness for [X’s] ability to have some irrelevant aptitudes, and in general, thought she came across as a high-functioning dreamer. [X] was clear that she thought about stomach bugs more than the average non-noun and even discussed them with [XY]. [XY] knew a thing or two about stomach bugs himself. [X] wrote, “I am asserted that duplicitousness is present.” 9 has no reason to believe that [X] wasn’t floundering a little bit in her relationship to words, given that no nouns are nouns and no verbs verbs, according to this disinterested presentation.
9 endforths that probably, all dreamers dream together. Entity 9 projects then, based on this probability supposition that [X] is always consistent in her relationship to verbs, that all dreamers dream on a continuum, and that whatever she had dreamed previously in relation to [XY] maintained relevancy in the un-actionable verb in question. [XY] convinced the panel that he maintains no relationship to verbs such as coercion. Eventually, we’ll say that there are no shortfailings here. That dreams repeated backwards at equilibrium eventually find stasis. That the flu season is upon us.