OMG - hilarious stuff dear Share - what a clueless, dishonest person you are. Judy has exposed your lies several times - yet you are unwilling, unable to see it.
No - Robin doesn't have to dumb down his brilliance for you, Barry, LG and Steve, all you need is a dictionary, a heart to feel the beauty of his words. I will get to your garbage when I have some time. On Apr 17, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Share Long <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > > >
