--- In [email protected], "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote:
> > The evidence seems to be leaning towards nobody really > > knows what he's talking about. > > No, there's no such evidence. I think what you mean is > that *you* have trouble understanding him. We know he > confuses Steve and Xeno and Barry and Share as well, but > the five of you aren't everybody. Not so fast young lady. Don't forget Lord Knows and the Howells as those who thinks he's the SOR, (same old Robin). Wait, and they spent all that time around him, didn't they. What's funny to me, is how you continually attempt to discredit their input into this matter. That's an example of some of your finest pretzeling. Is pretzeling a verb? > Too bad as I was really > > hoping that we had a saint in our midst. > > Well, that was pretty silly, wasn't it? You know, since > Robin himself would be the first person to discourage the > notion. Nor did DrD suggest such a thing. Robin is > REEEEEELY REEEEELY smart, but he ain't no saint. > > Also, it appears neither you nor Steve read what DrD > wrote with attention. He was suggesting that folks try > validating his analysis of Robin's writing for themselves, > not offering to do it for them. If you make a statement, and then can't back it up, then your statement doesn't count for much, does it? Oooooooooooppppsie. May have more to say thing evening. But this could not go unanswered. (-: > Hmm, now I'm beginning to see what's behind this. You and > Steve don't want to risk the attempt, because if you tried > and couldn't see what DrD describes, you'd be hesitant to > report your failure lest it appear that it was due to your > lack of comprehension, rather than DrD's analysis being > faulty. > > So your cowardice in this regard leads you to imply that > DrD and I have been posturing and that Robin has said > nothing of any significance. > > I would expect that kind of craven maneuver from Steve. > I'm surprised to see you engaging in it, LG. > > The really interesting thing is that Robin isn't all that > hard to understand for those willing to put a little effort > into it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
