the Scars of the Chalk on their Board

"It. The white remains of chalk dust spread out as if they didn't know of their destination. But can I really refer to chalck as a person or personify it, with a knowledge of what it should or shall be doing? Perhaps I should describe the mark on the board as would an artist, describing the significance in contrasting context, delineating the up-down pattern that was made by the human who did make it. To as her intentions, why or what she hoped to make by it, I cannot remember -- I actually do, but shalln't tell you -- the mark nevertheless remains, as a marker or scar of some discussion."

Besides, why am I writing in a stream of consciousness format? So that I can feed into my sub-mind and then understand deeper of my mind? Deeper into what I really am? Is it not better to reason and slowly move along, taking small steps that are necessary, so that I may not reach wrong conclusions? Isn't delineating by a reasoned process a better process?? A BETTER B-e-t-t-e-r process.

But that's fine, the music is too low, and then the conversation is too loud, about people and "who they are," how much they "dedicate to who they are." Why do you have to talk so loud?

Isn't silence the better option of the two? Isn't keeping a closed, quiet, reserved mouth better? Or not, because I'll keep talking and as the bullets fall from the gun, we'll just remain quiet, and subject to the scars that chalk leaves on boards.