Point taken. I recognize the trade off in what I said. However, since a few people here are able to comprehend what Robin posts, I consider it within the realm of possibility that anyone can.
Why not pick a passage of his, that is sufficiently vexing for you, and manageable for discussion, and bring it up? I will happily discuss it with you. Trying to eat the entire elephant at once, though, is too much. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry Steve, too much trouble. That's why I am retired - don't > have to do the heavy lifting anymore.:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
