Ok, "context shift" was not the right phrase. That's why I said,
"similar to". No matter, just some poetic license on my part.
But I am perplexed by what you say below. After all, you made a
specific statement about something. I did not make the statement. The
statement seemed implausible to me, that's why I asked for some
clarification. I don't really know how I would be able to clarify or
back up a statement you made about something.
But if you don't care to do it, then that's your prerogative. But I do
feel some compunction to try to back up statements that I make. But
that does not seem to be your m-o.
--- In [email protected], doctordumbass@... wrote:
>
> Hey Steve, actually I didn't shift context at all. You asked me to do
something for you, and I declined, preferring that you do it yourself.
Where's the context shift? A context shift would be if you had asked me,
and all of a sudden I was up in your grill about something, which is not
the case. Jeez.
>
> --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > Jim, is this akin to "shifting the context".
> >
> > You made a declaration. Someone, (me in this case), asked to
provide some evidence for it, and you declined. And now, LG is one
having to explain himself? Jeez.
> >
> > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I taught difficult technical material to adults for twenty years,
by learning it on my own, first. Time for you to get off your ass and do
it yourself...I am amazed at your snarkiness, given that you were
supposedly a professor of something, once.
> > >
> > > --- 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@ 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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
