Hey LG, I scanned a little, and then backed up to this post.
Yes, I was hoping DD might offer some clarification, but he really
doesn't do that. He declares something to be correct, and that's the
end of it, because of his state of mind, I guess. On the other hand,
his remarks, condescending as they usually are, have a flair of
creativity, so I find them interesting.
I purposely would not put such a question to Judy, because it would be a
total waste of time. Judy can and does spin anything seven ways from
Sunday, depending on what point she wants to make.
But this was the first time Jim stepped up to that plate, but
unfortunately, he bailed away from the pitch, even though it was right
down the middle. He does have a knack of doing that.
Of course, as he said, he's retired and retired folks usually don't
have.....wait, what am I saying, they do have extra time on their hands.
--- In [email protected], laughinggull108 wrote:
>
> Aw shucks, dumbass, I was rooting for ya not only that you *would* do
it but *could* do it...very similar to the "dog ate my homework". Well,
Steve, it'll remain in the holy archives that you *did* try, just as
others here have asked those "in the know" to interpret the writings of
you know who. The evidence seems to be leaning towards nobody really
knows what he's talking about. Too bad as I was really hoping that we
had a saint in our midst.
>
> --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Steve, too much trouble. That's why I am retired - don't have
to do the heavy lifting anymore.:-)
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Last week, I somehow found myself reading about fossils and the
best
> > > places to find them. Sedimentary rock, that which is formed by
> > > compression is the only place they are found, vs. in igneous and
> > > metamorphic rocks.
> > > >
> > > > Robin has the writing ability to work methodically down through
the
> > > fossil record, to the bedrock, when approaching someone's
consciousness.
> > > For those who doubt this, diagram out any of his writing, and you
will
> > > see clear first, second, and third set assumptions, each supported
by
> > > the previous. Very clean and perfectly constructed.
> > >
> > > Jim, I find this interesting. I realize it might entail some work
on
> > > your part, but could you give an example of this.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This approach of Robin's, then, can be substantiated as being in
the
> > > very least, logical. Through the reactions of his targets,
including
> > > himself, he also (inadvertently?) reveals something about how we
see
> > > ourselves, often as a shifting mass of emotionally tinged
reactions,
> > > jellied memories. Not through this verifiable, logical deduction.
> > > >
> > > > Verifiable, logical deduction works well for external stuff,
like
> > > determining where to find the fossil record. But most people do
not like
> > > such dispassionate rigor, applied to their own self-examination.
> > > >
> > > > So Judy can argue for the validity of Robin's writing, and Steve
can
> > > argue for its discomfort, and both are correct.
> > > >
> > > > Which then begs the question, if FFL is all about a search for
meaning
> > > and personal truth, what are those people doing on here, who
continually
> > > avoid personal truth, by shifting context? What is the implicit
> > > agreement we have all made, to validate the dialogue here, seek
personal
> > > truth, or be comfortable with each other? Or both?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
