<p>
</p>
<p>I actually just mean “no consequence.” It’s not even an idiomatic expression that needs dissecting. I didn’t say “no consequence” while really meaning “insignificant,” or “trivial.” It means, very literally, “no result.” I hope it is now clear that your question is entirely incoherent. Something does not fail to exact a change in the state of the universe “to” anyone, it simply fails to exact change. </p>
<p>By referring to the two cases that you “delineated,” you are implying that your compassion was, in fact, of consequence, having an “external impact” in both of these cases. Please, tell me, just how were you involved in the Aurora shooting and the conflict in Syria?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is nonsensical precisely because it has no impact, in the same way that it is nonsensical to try to phase your hand through a bank vault door. I don’t understand what is confusing you here. That you take issue with such simple concepts is alarming.</p>
<p>Also, you posed the question incorrectly. It should have began as “How could something…” instead of “Why must something…”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m nothing special. Neither are you. Not humble, just honest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You get your words from English language reference literature? What a peasant!</p>
<p>That’s adorable. If you will, recall this gem:
</p>
<p>I don’t think you’re in any position to launch criticism of this flavor. And I don’t even use a thesaurus.</p>