laughinggull I want to say that sometimes I find Robin's writing simple and clear. But very often I find it unclear and voluminous which for me adds up to unreadable. IMO Judy demonstrates a certain kind of co dependent arrogance every time she berates people for not getting off their butts, putting in the effort, etc. to understand Robin's writing. Other posters here manages many times to be both clear AND profound. Why can't Robin? Ok, ok, people have a right to have their unique voice. And I actually enjoy all the different writing styles. But if a person wants to be understood, wouldn't they make an attempt to write more clearly for their audience? Especially given that at other times they are able to do so?
________________________________ From: laughinggull108 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:25 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@> 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. > > Uh-oh, LG, you're going the route of the other prevaricators > around here. One of their tricks is not to use names, which > they think makes it safe for them to seriously distort an > incident in which these pseudo-anonymous folks have been > involved, making it sound shifty. My purposeful removal of names, as in this case, was so as not to bring more attention to those that probably crave it. > We know who "you know who" is, of course. But "others here" > refers to Xeno and "those 'in the know'" refers to me. "Others here" now includes Steve, and also includes me as I've asked Robin on at least one occasion to explain in language that I can understand without all the other stuff that merely confuses the point he is making. "In the know" now includes dumbass, and might also include Ann, RD, and Emily who on several occasions have indicated that they understand what he has written. > Here's what really happened: Xeno demanded that I interpret > some post of Robin's *in order to prove* that I understood > him, and I refused to do any interpreting on that basis. I > considered it insulting, given that I had already spent a > huge amount of time explaining Robin to people (including > Xeno) who couldn't take the time to read his posts, or at > least to put any effort into absorbing what he had said. > > > 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. You are correct...I have great trouble understanding him. > 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. That was the final snarky jab there. While maybe not a saint, I'm always hoping I can learn something from everyone who comments here. > 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. > > 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. It's not deliberate by any means but rather arises from a sense of frustration in not being about to understand what someone is writing. BTW, Robin's not the only one whose writing I don't get. I'm open to understanding but none of you are helping other than to say get off your ass, put some work into it, or provide links to the posts so we can go back and read them again. Don't you see how circular this is? And your explanations are by no means succinct nor easy to understand. Perhaps one of my motives *is* to prove you wrong but for the life of me, I don't know why. I guess I have some work ahead. > The really interesting thing is that Robin isn't all that > hard to understand for those willing to put a little effort > into it. But is the effort worth the reward? [snip]
