From: Dan Clemmensen (dgc@cox.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 05:16:15 MST
Eugene Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
>
>>Chesire -- I am happy to agree with you on this point. Particularly
>>with regard to Eugene's comments. Most of the time he gets my vote as
>>the most obscure, condensed poster on the list (of course I can't view
>>
>
> Gaak. I wasn't aware of this. This won't do, obviously.
>
>
>>myself clearly -- the recent exchange with Louis suggests that I could
>>very well fall into that swamp myself). I am generally left looking
>>
>
> Nonono, Robert, you come over lucid and clear over here. It's just me,
> then.
>
>
>>at his comments questioning whether I really understand them -- and
>>most of the time I think our relative knowledge bases are pretty
>>similar -- which makes my confusion sometimes even stranger. I would
>>
>
> I apologize for unintended obfuscation, and will attempt to do better in
> future. Any feedback is very welcome.
>
>
>>write it off to cultural differences but I of all people on the list
>>have at least some overlap with Eugene's cultural background. So the
>>source of this remains a mystery to me. So viewing Eugene's comments
>>as an enigma wrapped inside a riddle boxed within a puzzle is not a
>>new situation.
>>
>
> I had *no* idea.
>
I consider 'gene's posts to be the richest on this list. I have no
trouble reading them. To me, they are dense but not obscure. If 'gene
attempts to convey the same information at the average density of the
list, his posts will occupy half the list's bandwidth.
'Gene: please do not change your style. It's good for us.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:02 MST