# Eternity Async Tutoring **URL:** \ **Category:** Tutoring\ **Created:** [April 17, 2024, 11:22pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932 "2024-04-17T23:22:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2024, 3:02am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/562 "2024-09-15T03:02:00Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > There’s always a first time. Getting angry like that is a big red flag that you might hit someone in the future. I think this is probably true for me. Thinking about this stuff again after a while, I do know that sometimes I can get mad enough to need to hit walls and stuff. I don’t think its a stretch to go from that to a person at some point. Also thinking about it. Talking about it in the context of relationships and stuff, my parents had a very abusive relationship(it went both ways, though I’m pretty sure it started with my dad). I already know I’ve picked up some bad stuff my dad does in general. I can see myself probably having picked up stuff on how to deal with problems in a relationship and end up hitting someone. I just don’t have any relationship experience to think about it. > [@Elliot](#): > > If some of those articles or reddit topics interest you, then consider reading a book about domestic abuse. Or if you prefer videos, it’s possible to find many women sharing relevant stories on TikTok (don’t write in the comments). I’m interested. I saw this book recommended: > **[Amazon.com: Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men:...](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-He-That-Controlling/dp/0425191656)** > > Amazon.com: Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men: 8601300264479: Bancroft, Lundy: Books I’ll probably listen to it as an audiobook. I’ll look at some posts and articles later and see if I can relate to anything said. I think I probably would find some stuff similar to me. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2024, 3:32pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/563 "2024-09-15T15:32:47Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > ~yeah. Hmm. Thinking about it, I think part of me sometimes has the mentality I do from school where I just want to give what the teacher is looking for, instead of trying to explain. That’s sorta funny/ironic because what _I_ tend to look for is direct, literal answers. Like you can explain, or not, but at least give a direct answer. This comes up in debates or critical discussions where I often want a “yes” or “no”, and then an explanation can go after that, but at least give the literal answer at the start. Or if a one word answer doesn’t work, then I often want a one sentence clear, direct answer first, and then they can explain or write whatever after that. I don’t like when I ask a clear question then read a paragraph response that leaves it ambiguous whether their answer is “yes” or “no”. Whereas if i get a clear direct answer but no explanation, I often don’t mind. Yeah often it’s good to explain more without being asked, but a lot of the time it’s not really necessary, whereas a direct answer is kinda necessary IMO. You’ll see that when I answer questions I often do it that way myself: a word or sentence at the start with a clear answer, then more explanation after. I think maybe you were doing something that _other teachers_ might want, which wasn’t really customized for me. Somewhat related: when politicians answer questions they often don’t give a direct answer and just give some talking points for that topic. Trump and Kamala both did this a lot at the recent debate. Most viewers seem to usually not mind this. Some of Trump’s answers in particular got really off topic from the question he was asked, more than is typical for politician answers; I’m not sure if viewers minded that much or not. @LMD ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2024, 3:45pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/564 "2024-09-15T15:45:23Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > > [@Elliot](#): > > > > Does “as necessary and inevitable” make sense and work grammatically as a modifier for “cycle”? > > Umm. Before checking anything, I’m not sure. I just kind of went off of the fact that “as necessary and inevitable” came right after cycle. Also if I’m understanding the sentence correctly its saying something like: this cycle has been recognized as necessary and inevitable. So “as necessary and inevitable” is giving more information about “this cycle”. The text “necessary and inevitable” makes sense as a modifier for “cycle”. It would tell you about the type of cycle. It’s a necessary and inevitable cycle. Both of those adjectives work individually too: “necessary cycle” and “inevitable cycle” both make sense. However, I don’t think you can have a “cycle as X”. I think the grammar just doesn’t work for “as” to modify “cycle”. You can see a similar problem with other nouns. “cow as X” sounds wrong whereas “cow on X” sounds normal. Putting in specific words, “big cow” works, but “cow as big” doesn’t. And “cow on the ground” works. You can also make them whole sentence. “The big cow ate grass.” (Works.) “The cow as big ate grass.” (Sounds wrong.) “I saw a cow on the ground.” (Works.) Does that make sense? Can your intuition tell which work or not? > [@Eternity](#): > > > [@Elliot](#): > > > > Also, would it make sense and work grammatically as a modifier for “recognized”? What do you think? Why? > > Going off the definition of “as” I don’t think so anymore. My original reasoning was simply that Lummox recognized this cycle as necessary and inevitable. He recognized it as necessary and inevitable. Why do you think the definition makes this fail? ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2024, 4:23pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/565 "2024-09-15T16:23:15Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > I do know that sometimes I can get mad enough to need to hit walls and stuff. The word “need” there is a misconception. If you just delete “to need” the sentence is better. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2024, 1:02am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/566 "2024-09-17T01:02:34Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > The word “need” there is a misconception. If you just delete “to need” the sentence is better. For a second I thought their was a grammar term called misconception and I was confused. I assume you mean that me thinking I “need” to hit walls is a misconception on my part. Which makes sense. I don’t _need_ to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2024, 1:07am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/567 "2024-09-17T01:07:02Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > You’ll see that when I answer questions I often do it that way myself: a word or sentence at the start with a clear answer, then more explanation after. Yeah. I have noticed that. I do like that in your writing. > [@Elliot](#): > > I think maybe you were doing something that _other teachers_ might want, which wasn’t really customized for me. Yes. I think that happened because I was trying to rush out an answer before going into work. So I answered it like I would for other teachers, without keeping in mind what teacher I’m actually writing for. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2024, 1:30am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/568 "2024-09-17T01:30:52Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > However, I don’t think you can have a “cycle as X”. I think the grammar just doesn’t work for “as” to modify “cycle”. You can see a similar problem with other nouns. “cow as X” sounds wrong whereas “cow on X” sounds normal. Putting in specific words, “big cow” works, but “cow as big” doesn’t. And “cow on the ground” works. You can also make them whole sentence. “The big cow ate grass.” (Works.) “The cow as big ate grass.” (Sounds wrong.) “I saw a cow on the ground.” (Works.) > > Does that make sense? Can your intuition tell which work or not? Yes. Reading the sentences I can tell for which one “as” makes sense for. “cycle as necessary and inevitable” does not make sense. Hmm. So as I was reading this, I feel like “as” works as modifier for verbs. Kinda. “recognized as necessary and inevitable” sounds right. “The cow as big ate grass.” Sounds wrong. I agree. “The cow ate grass as a big animal”. Directly having big sounded kind of weird, but that kind of works. “cow as a big animal” doesn’t sound right. “ate as a big animal” does. > [@Elliot](#): > > Why do you think the definition makes this fail? Ok. So I don’t think it fails anymore in general, but a part of me still does think the definition fails it. Why? as - “used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has:” Its two things that makes me think it fails because of the definition. “recognized” is a verb. A verb, to me, doesn’t seem like a “something or something” for as to modify. The second thing is that while, on an intuitive level, “recognized as necessary and inevitable” sounds right to me it feels weird in my head to say that “recognized” is what is being modified here. After all, while “cycle as necessary and inevitable” sounds wrong to me, it is “cycle” that is being recognized as “necessary and inevitable”. Ooh. Here’s another way to put it: I don’t get how “recognized” here can have the functions of “necessary and inevitable” using the definition of as. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2024, 2:10am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/569 "2024-09-17T02:10:24Z")
Here’s another tree in the meantime: > They seemed to be moving house; an endless chain was dragging little white grubs in one direction while a countermarching line returned for more grubs. ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/6/6a6a2db7c23654951935e2f89baea17f6ad85594.png) ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2024, 2:02pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/570 "2024-09-17T14:02:33Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > Ooh. Here’s another way to put it: I don’t get how “recognized” here can have the functions of “necessary and inevitable” using the definition of as. “as necessary and inevitable” describes the type of recognition. It says what the cycle was recognized as being. You can even write “I recognized-as-necessary the thing.” and it’s understandable including without hyphens. Recognition is a thing involved in a recognizing action. Or in the alternative, the definition is inexact. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2024, 10:30pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/571 "2024-09-18T22:30:33Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > “as necessary and inevitable” describes the type of recognition. It says what the cycle was recognized as being. > > You can even write “I recognized-as-necessary the thing.” and it’s understandable including without hyphens. > From experience Lummox recognized this cycle as necessary and inevitable; nevertheless the immediate prospect was excruciatingly boring. Hmm. Let me try re-writing it: From experience Lummox recognized as necessary and inevitable this cycle. Ok that makes a lot more sense with re-ordering it. > [@Elliot](#): > > Recognition is a thing involved in a recognizing action. Or in the alternative, the definition is inexact. I get recognition being a thing involved in a recognizing action. What do you mean by the definition is inexact in the alternative? ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2024, 10:53pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/572 "2024-09-18T22:53:57Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > > [@Elliot](#): > > > > Why do you think the definition makes this fail? > > Ok. So I don’t think it fails anymore in general, but a part of me still does think the definition fails it. Why? as - “used to refer to the function or character that someone or something has:” Its two things that makes me think it fails because of the definition. “recognized” is a verb. A verb, to me, doesn’t seem like a “something or something” for as to modify. > [@Eternity](#): > > > [@Elliot](#): > > > > Recognition is a thing involved in a recognizing action. Or in the alternative, the definition is inexact. > > I get recognition being a thing involved in a recognizing action. What do you mean by the definition is inexact in the alternative? The definition for “as” says “someone or something”. So you I thought of two choices: 1. View the recognizing action as the thing, even though the verb is “recognized” not a noun form. Action verbs talk about an action – so there is a thing involved (the action can be regarded as a thing and talked about with an “ing” ending) – so maybe “as” applies to that. 2. View the definition as inaccurate – “as” works with verbs too. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2024, 12:13am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/573 "2024-09-20T00:13:17Z")
Some more writing to share: I’ve listened to most of the audiobook version of _Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men_. I like it a lot so far. Theres somethings he shares that are quite disturbing about how women are treated and some broader disturbing things about how research into abuse has been conducted. Just one example, related to Sigmund Freud, that I thought was disturbing (quote is from the kindle edition of the book): > We need to take a large step back in time for a moment, to the early part of Freud’s era, when modern psychology was born. In the 1890s, when Freud was in the dawn of his career, he was struck by how many of his female patients were revealing childhood incest victimization to him. Freud concluded that child sexual abuse was one of the major causes of emotional disturbances in adult women and wrote a brilliant and humane paper called “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” However, rather than receiving acclaim from his colleagues for his ground-breaking insights, Freud met with scorn. He was ridiculed for believing that men of excellent reputation (most of his patients came from upstanding homes) could be perpetrators of incest. Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. > > Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That? (p. 279). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. I looked it up and apparently thats accurate: > **[Freud was right about childhood sexual abuse… until he was disastrously wrong...](https://healinghonestly.com/memory/freud-was-right-about-childhood-sexual-abuse-until-he-was-disastrously-wrong-about-it/)** > > I discuss Sigmund Freud’s theories around hysteria and childhood sexual abuse and how he was so right about the epidemic of CSA until he decided to be extremely wrong about it. I share what I learned from Dr. Judith Herman’s book Trauma and Recovery... > Once Freud started listening to his women patients (again, wild\*),\* all he heard was story after story of childhood sexual abuse. Dr. Herman explains, “Freud and his patients uncovered major traumatic events of childhood concealed beneath the more recent, often relatively trivial experiences that had actually triggered the onset of hysterical systems.” This, to me, sounds exactly like how I’ve seen CSA show up in so many of us as adults. We experience some trigger as adults, and as we dig deeper we discover childhood trauma that had been repressed in some way. > This is when Freud gets CSA super duper right. I love the way Dr. Herman explains how _The Aetiology of Hysteria_ was so spot-on about sexual abuse. She says, “A century later, this paper stil rivals contemporary clinical descriptions of the effects of childhood sexual abuse. It is a brilliant, compassionate, eloquently argued, closely reasoned document.” Well damn, Freud, I guess you did great. There seems to be some disagreement, that I don’t know how to look into effectively, about why Freud did what he did: > His letters from that time show that Freud was really worried that if hysteria was caused by CSA, then it meant that CSA was literally everywhere, and that was too much for him to wrap his head around as true. > > “Hysteria was so common among women that if his patients’ stories were true, and if his theory were correct, he would be forced to conclude that what he called ‘perverted acts against children’ were endemic, not only among the proletariat of Paris, where he had first studied hysteria, but also among the respectable bourgeois families of Vienna, where he had established his practice. This idea was simply unacceptable,” explains Dr. Herman. > > OKAY, SO LISTEN. Freud decided it couldn’t be that all these fancy-ass families had adults sexually abusing children in them, so said that his entire theory had to be incorrect. He found it easier to deny his entire findings than to accept that CSA happened in every family, everywhere, all the time. Bancroft says its because he was met with scorn for believing that good men could be doing this stuff, the above says Freud couldn’t believe how much CSA was around him and that it couldn’t be true of well to do families. Probably both are true? Regardless, thats really bad that we knew about this stuff (I think it makes sense for most of this to be true, but so far I’ve only read this book) way earlier but it was forced out of discussion. * * * I think I want to discuss this book and other stuff further. I might make a thread on it. I’ll see. In terms of my view of myself as an abuser. I’m unsure. I finally got to the part of the book (its near the end) where he discusses the _why_ about men being abuser (so I’ll comment on that after). When it comes to the how of abuse, a big theme off the book is _control_. I could be inaccurate in how I view my anger, and it is definitely possible I could have controlling elements, but when I get angry enough to desire to hit stuff I’ve never used it in a controlling manner. Abusive men hit women in order to control them. I’ve hit friends when I was younger because I got so pissed off that I just hit them. I always regret it afterwards. This is true of the times I’ve gotten very angry at women around me (not hitting them, the regret part). I get very angry, though I have gotten very confused (much to the surprise of a lot of friends around me) when the women are scared of me. I’ll probably share the kind of things that get me angry at some point, but as far as I can tell I just show my anger inappropriately (very inappropriately, I’m not trying to downplay it). I don’t use it to do stuff like scare women or control people. Oh yeah I should probably clarify the confused part: another example of anger/potential violence I remembered related to work. One of my previous managers was a women and came in late a lot. In general, I get very mad at managers who fail to live up to the stuff they get to enforce. She can fire me fire being late (reasonable) while being late herself (unreasonable to me). Long-story short: one day she came in 30 minutes late to her shift, I got very angry and hit a wall in front of her. I had a very good relationship with her, so I didn’t get fired. She made it very clear that, that made her very uncomfortable and afraid. People don’t believe me (or at least not fully) when I say that I didn’t really understand what I did in that moment as bad or scary. I got mad enough to want to hit (this is bad, I acknowledge that) and so I hit a wall. The idea that she found it scary and traumatic (she had some history with this stuff she shared with me), while reasonable to me, was surprising/unintended. I do this a lot when I’ve gotten angry around friends. They tell me that I made them or others uncomfortable. I get kind of surprised/confused by it. It makes sense, but I didn’t intend to do that so I just never thought that would happen. As far as I can tell I may have problems with how I express my anger and what I get angry about (I don’t know if I should have ever gotten that angry over my boss being late), but I don’t think I necessarily fit into the typical abuser category here. Though I do understand, from what I’ve read/listened to so far, that anything like hitting a well is abusive to a women regardless of my thought process behind it. Very unsure about all this. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2024, 12:37am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/574 "2024-09-20T00:37:59Z")
Here’s two more grammar trees: I came across a highlighted scene from Atlas Shrugged when reviewing readwise today. One sentence looked kind of doable and I wanted to try it. > They are alive, she thought, but their soul operates them by remote control. ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c51c227188f922a42a3e2c1e1597c5ae011db87a.png) I’m unsure of what to do with the “she thought”. My logic in putting it as a modifier for “are” was that its giving more information about are somehow. This “are” connection is a thought. I don’t know though. From The Star Beast: > His number-seven foot came down on the ant hill and crushed it, but the fact did not come to his attention. ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/8/8f4a37f1fba20d5c2e7eb8310f7ac1a33ed585a1.png) I’m also unsure on this one. I don’t know. I kept avoiding text that seemed confusing to tree, so I just picked one that seemed doable and just went with it. I think the first part has two verbs? came and crushed? the rest of it, I think is ok. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2024, 12:46am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/575 "2024-09-20T00:46:00Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > > They are alive, she thought, but their soul operates them by remote control. This is like: > She thought that they are alive but their soul operates them by remote control. or > She thought, “they are alive but their soul operates them by remote control”. Those may help with understanding the meaning and another way to tree it. Your version is understandable and makes conceptual sense. It’s suitable for philosophy analysis. But “she thought” is a verb and subject, so it can’t be grammatically right to treat it as just a normal modifier not a clause. > [@Eternity](#): > > I think the first part has two verbs? came and crushed? correct Your tree has no subject for “crushed”. Do you know how to fix that? ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2024, 10:18pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/576 "2024-09-20T22:18:16Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > Those may help with understanding the meaning and another way to tree it. > > Your version is understandable and makes conceptual sense. It’s suitable for philosophy analysis. But “she thought” is a verb and subject, so it can’t be grammatically right to treat it as just a normal modifier not a clause. Ok. Here’s my attempt at treeing those sentences and fixing the previous one: > They are alive, she thought, but their soul operates them by remote control. ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c19ff693b5fec7bfb079fc0ba5a51ed081ac0a01.png) > She thought that they are alive but their soul operates them by remote control. ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/e/eb1e437cf46716524d6220d3fe6679952b1ab908.png) > She thought, “they are alive but their soul operates them by remote control”. ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/c/cf178d3e868c3fb89d78de01e883822529ce24ee.png) I just realized that the first and third tree are identical. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2024, 10:22pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/577 "2024-09-20T22:22:00Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > Your tree has no subject for “crushed”. Do you know how to fix that? No. Here’s a guess: ![image](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/9/9c54c50a82fd28f958f5aca9daee277ecfa0cbef.png) I don’t like it thought because it looks like and is working on foot too. I think I could fix it with implied words, but without an implied word I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2024, 3:37pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/578 "2024-09-21T15:37:51Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > I don’t like it thought because it looks like and is working on foot too. What is conceptually being expressed here? Why organize the try this way? ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2024, 3:40pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/579 "2024-09-21T15:40:40Z")
> [@Eternity](#): > > She thought that they are alive but their soul operates them by remote control. The way you did this, “their soul operates them by remote control” isn’t one of her thoughts. She only thought “they are alive”. Do you see what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2024, 2:24am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/580 "2024-09-22T02:24:40Z")
yes, the quotes made it clear, I think, that the whole thing after it is a thought. Intuitively, when I read it I know the whole thing is a thought, but when treeing it I just go off a process. two verbs: thought and operate. conjunction. ok so tree it like that. Hmm. That’s not a fully good reason, for why I did it the way I did. I’m unsure as of now, but I think part of it is that “that” is confusing to me when doing trees I think. ---
**Author:** ![Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/eternity/32/5930_2.png) [@Eternity](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2024, 2:31am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932/581 "2024-09-22T02:31:04Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > What is conceptually being expressed here? Why organize the try this way? What I feel like its expressing here is that “and” is joining together the subject “foot” with “came” and “crushed”. So it looks like the original sentence would be something like: foot and came and crushed. What I wanted to express is that “foot” is the subject of the two verbs “came” and “crushed” which were joined together by “and”. Maybe that is being done by the color coding I did for the tree? That’s why I organized it that way. Its the subject of the two verbs being and’ed. [Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932.md?page=28) [Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/eternity-async-tutoring/1932.md?page=30)