We proved it, yet they still deny it. The art of language kicked up a notch by computer scientists. This was already immediately misunderstood because they didn't know the difference between Science of the Arts and Science of the Letters. It's like content versus context... simple as that.
When the "us and them" or "we and they" type statements are used, then its should only be about content versus context, or their are problems. Set aside some personal freedoms in dialects, then common sense sorts itself out. This knowledge is the basic art of a programmer. The very definition of the word programmer includes 1) pro-: before, primary; 2) grammar: "the branch of linguistics that deals with syntax and morphology (and sometimes also deals with semantics)"
Your attention is needed to the very word semantics. As a programmer of the Letters, we don't deal with semantics in one context, yet we understand how that could be mistaken as "we don't want sematism" in another context. Aha! We got us a major problem, and we've had this major problem for a long time. Those of that understand this critical issue have also understood how to appreciate history.
Bank! Yes, you can bank on this problem! In simple computer terms we have talked about memory problems. These kinds of problems we can just accept as a means of life because, because simply, wants to protect their on content.
We sublimed a step and try to to protect your context, so we don't have to know anything about your content. Whatever you put in your safety box is in our safety net. It's meshed to a point where it's stablized in suspended animation, which proves it remains untouched.
That's the easier way to explain it, yet we actually go much further and map it out in the inverse. This keeps it baby-safe. At this point, there are no words that prove themselves in order to speak statement that support such inverse ideas. It has to be proven separately. This point also prove the difference between Science of the Arts and Science of the Letters. Most colleges seem only interested in Science of the Arts, as it appears most don't expect students to complete work in Science of the Letters.
Does this need to be fixed? That requires proof, also. That's when programmers turn into biotechnology and sublime a step into agricultural biotechnology. College recruiters just looks at grades in certain classes and past work history and this plus this equals "accepted!" The real challenge then becomes the attempt to teach the knowledge. Practice what you preach and preach what you practiced.
Did you make some good choices that nobody else seems to understand in any ordinary lifetime? Ah! So, thats your problem!
To sum up the above, your problem is that you can't speak of the unordinary or what's outside of the solar system unless you prove its down to earth. There are several stages of psychosis, yet most of them are to label doctors that are still students. Psychosis should only last a week, so if they try to justify it beyond that then it's down to earth terms -- they're not doctors.
Who are these doctors?
Without any fingers pointed, we could say this group works on a black problem and this group works on a white problem. This is actually a native problem: jungle fever. It's when people try to be something their not. They think because they look like something that they are just as good. "We make XXX look good."
Dumb idea... whoever thought to take African natives and dump them in American districts to cause a distraction apropos to the causes for civil war. Edgy subject! Wait... think for a moment... natives want to kill natives?
Didn't happen.
I look at the Mayan Calendar and can only amaze at the statement... like clockwork! Problem solved. Shall we roll the dice again?
Actually, we need to move the nursery before we roll the dice. [It moved if we exclude the hospitals.]