Many of the phrases in the original post (#317358) exist in other documents on the web as far back as 2005 as far as I can tell using a small sample of phrases from the post. Other phrases only show up on FFL. A lot of material appears to have been accommodated to create the post. It is entertaining and oddly applicable.
Most of what we say and think is recycled from elsewhere, even if we give it a new form. Substitution of Robin's name gives it a sense of coherence (kind of like Robin's writing which has a sense of coherence, but tends not to make sense a lot of times). I actually first mistyped the word 'coherence', as 'conherence', which I suppose could mean a state of bringing together for the purpose conning (derived from con - persuade to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception), which often seems to be Robin's operational modality. In a response to Robin which I never finished, at one point I was trying to see how obscure I could make a simple statement. I selected as a test phrase 'I think I will take a walk.' Then I went to Google and looked up definitions of the words and put those in place of the original words, and repeated the process for several minutes. 'I think I will take a walk' became: 'In making reference to myself as a willful doer of a fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim, i.e., and agent, and taking into account consideration when deciding on a possible action, your speaker here intends, desires, wishes, to make happen by reaching and grasping, to move at an arranged or constituting of a constant or definite pattern and to an acceptable extent a only at a low speed; not quick or fast, a unit of length representing the distance between two successive steps by lifting and setting down each foot in turn, never at once having both feet off the solid surface of the celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star on which we live.' What can one's 'personal ontology' do with such drivel? Apparently quite a lot, at least if you are Robin. I must admit I never really get the idea of 'personal ontology', which seems to be defined in the dictionary as 'a branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being as affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else'. By focusing on personal aspects, Robin divides and conquers, because it is on that level that we are weakest, individuated and separate from everything, it is where we cannot be whole.
