I hardly ever post here, but I read FFL quite a bit and I absolutely second Rory and New.morning here. I'm no true believer, but I'm a great fan of Judy's incisive thinking and writing. Apart from when things get too convoluted (e.g. in the Barry-Judy wars), I enjoy almost all of her posts.
So that makes 3 of us. Geoff --- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > Anyhow, as I said, I was thinking about you, and seeing you as a > > kind of Jedi-Judy, weilding such a perfect, laser-sharp light- sword > > of discrimination and chopping everyone's head off, or rather simply > > holding the sword out and watching them run right into it :-) > > In a similar vein, though I am perhaps not as emphatic and colorful as > Rory, I like Judy's focus, insight and logic in many of her posts. It > is interesting to see her view and process unfold when she takes on a > topic. > > That is not to say that I always agree with her conclusions. I may > evaluate and weigh the supporting arguments differently than her -- or > have additional points I might consider. And some topics I am not > intereted in (her past issues with turq). > > While Rory and I apparently are in a minority, I think she regularly > makes a strong contribution and and often provides excellent examples > of precise thinking and exposition. > > I also regularly enjoy Curtis and Marek's post for similiar reasons. > > For me the value in a post is not does it support your existing POV's, > but rather, does it help you see things from a new angle. Does the > "piercing look" of the writer help uncover new things, or reveal > processes to do such. I find all three posters do that for me -- yet > clearly their conculsions differ. >
