>Bill, why do you think that when you can't understand something, the
>fault is always on the speaker's end?
You're putting words into my mouth, I didn't say it was "always" the speakers fault. That said however, my reading comprehension skills are relatively high. My weakness is that I lack patience, so I prefer someone who writes well, like Jerry.
Actually, it isn't just impatience, though I am sometimes impatient with those who merely write inexpertly. However those who write in a deliberately and expertly obscure and pretentious style provoke me to anger. Not just mild anger either, but an almost uncontrollable rage. I can't fully understand it to be honest. Its happening as I speak, just thinking about it.
That's why I'm so appreciative of (and impressed by) Jerry's calm analysis. Its something I just wouldn't be capable of. Firstly I lack the patience to delve into the obscurantist quicksand and secondly I'm incapable of analysing it calmly. Jerry is my hero, he might even be good therapy for my rage, although it hasn't worked out that way just yet.
At 12:32 PM -0800 21/12/06, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>>Perhaps, but at least I can understand what he says.
>
>
>Is this another way of saying you agree with him?
I do agree with him, but I couldn't say that if I didn't understand him. I know some people seem capable of agreeing with what they don't understand, but that's a trick I haven't mastered.
> You say Zizek is hard to understand. I don't think he is.
I've forgotten who Zizek is, and I prefer no-one remind me. Someone best forgotten.
> Where does that leave us?
It leaves me ill-tempered. But I'll get over it quickly. IU just need to think about something else.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas