Something that comes up a lot for me, wrt Robin's writing, is its density, and unique style. so, AGREED! That is why plowing through it is real work. That is why I have no desire to diagram out his logic, on paper. At first I thought he had some wasted words in there, and began looking for them. Nope. His writing style is extremely challenging for me to read, like Shakespeare (not in content, obviously, but in design), yet it remains coherent.
I recognize I am continuing to assert something that others may disagree with, without giving examples. I guess that stays where it is. I kinda don't want to research Robin, unless he posts something again. :-) --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Sounds like, 1. you've made up your mind about Robin, > > Perhaps I have, but I'm willing to consider an analysis of his writings that > might cause me to learn something of value and possibly change my mind. But > then again, Robin didn't come here claiming to be a teacher so maybe I'm > expecting too much from his writing. > > > and 2. just feel like arguing about it. > > You got me there, I *do* feel like arguing. Sometimes I react to something > that has been written and feel like I should respond, snark and all. Maybe > something that *both* of us needs is being fulfilled right now. > > > As Judy says, the guy ain't that hard to read, with comprehension. Remember > > when the training wheels came off the bike? Same thing. > > Judy is wrong. Oh, the training wheels are removable??? Well, I'll Be! > > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > My bad...I thought FFL was all about snark, after all, I *do* have the > > > best teachers! > > > > > > Anyway, wasn't it Judy who wrote that when anyone needs clarification on > > > something that all they have to do is ask? I thought Steve asked very > > > respectfully for clarification on the points you were making (and for > > > which another praised you). I was hoping to learn something about the > > > "clean and perfectly constructed" writings of another but I guess I'll > > > just have to wait until my consciousness reaches those levels of > > > understanding. > > > > > > WARNING: more snark ahead: So you really don't know, do you? Just as I > > > thought... > > > > > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> 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 <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. 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@ <no_reply@> > > > > > 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" > > > > > > <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
