Ravi, the first week you were in San Diego, you sounded happy.  But the longer 
you stay there, the more miserable you sound.  And sadly you've just about 
totally lost your sense of humor.  I hope your project there ends soon and you 
can return home and be happy again.  

BTW I agree that Robin does not have to dumb down his brilliance for anyone and 
I think that many of us feel the beauty of his words sometimes.  I'm talking 
about the other times when one needs a buzzsaw to cut through the jungle of 
words and phrases to get to the conceptual oasis.  And don't even get me 
started on the Irony!  For that one needs as reading assistant, the two headed 
Hydra, one head parsing for the straight forward meaning and one for the 
Descartian doubt technique meaning.  

 From: Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.r...@gmail.com>
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

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 

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 <sharelon...@yahoo.com> 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 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:25 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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?

Reply via email to