Forum Posts Feed
Proust
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Dr Andus
Sep 7, 2012 at 03:28 PM
reverendmartian wrote:
We have
>also had some short tutorials about using this software. For example, I am awaiting
>your tutorial on using CT to code pdf files.
Thanks for the reminder. In fact I’ve already set up a separate blog where I’ll be posting my CT tutorials, so that I don’t annoy people here who are not that interested in CT. Watch this space :)
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Sep 7, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Reverendmartian (cool login by the way) I welcome your ‘call to order’ because it gives voice to at least some of the people who visit this forum mostly to read and less to contribute.
In this respect we should consider that each complaint may represent 5-15 others who feel the same way but don’t speak about it. I for one am interested in this ‘silent majority (?)’. Given the prominence of this forum in Google search results, I expect that the unique visits and pageviews are indeed considerable. For me this implies responsibility: for example, I’m sure that we all make the effort to provide advice to the best of our knowledge, because we assume that others may be influenced by our experience and do not want to mislead them.
In the same way, I believe that taking the effort to write clearly and to stay within the topic of each thread is equally important—though I am sure that I have myself diverged several times from this.
That said, I overall share the position expressed by Bill (madaboutdana) and Dr Andus, i.e. “live and let live” sort to speak. Of course, if we see that long posts considerably impact a significant number of independent threads, we should do something about it; at the end of the day discussion should be multi-way else it is something else.
Posted by Fredy
Sep 9, 2012 at 02:37 PM
Among educated people, arguments are exchanged in order to get to sort of an intermediate result on which to convene, and I’m thankful to people who question my intermediate findings, in order to rethink them.
Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Steven, whose so-called “reviews” to which there are links here, are very basic, didn’t really refute what I had said (within UR forum, especially), but just said his opinion was different, and notwithstanding this, due to respect to Steven, I questioned my stance myself, and had an intermediate surrender to the opposite stance: yes, deepest level of tree vs. one sub-title level within text body, indeed, it would be better to make this interchangeable, like I did 15 years ago myself, then lost out of sight.
Which is to say, Steven did NOTHING in order to trigger further thinking by myself, I just did it all by myself, then just pretended my thinking being triggered by Steven, in order to make friends among those few here who did at least SOME contributing here, in direct comparison with people like the martian and others.
Now I must see that not only martians - who simply don’t get it, even most basic things - openly treat me as an idiot here, but also the majority of people doing some contribs, incl. Steven - not speaking of some little agitators who ONLY “contribute” here when it comes to Fred-bashing, and on top of this, the few people who defend me here, are suspected of being other impersonisations of myself.
I fact, I’m in a position here where I’d have to “defend” myself against the stones = agressions devoid of arguments of people sufficiently dumb to NOT get my point with Proust’s “information presentation technology”, and that, when getting explained it by third parties, treat them as my other self, instead of trying to get their explanation, in the absence of mine - which proves it’s not my particular style that people incapable of some thinking are incapable of following me just a bit.
I had mentioned Proust in the absence of any other known example of such a style at the opposite of anything we’ve ever tried to realize, and because I wanted to mention the presumed origin of that particular style - for both reasons, why should I have mentioned some of minor French social sciences authors instead to which you wouldn’t have easy access, and who perhaps don’t do but ape his style - why discussing some minor, obscure replicas, instead of the readily available (presumed) original?
But no, in SEVERAL threads here, there is “discussion” now of my not even having the authorization, to start with, to discuss Proust’s (double) “information presentation”, but his “action”, incredibly interspersed, as his “general reflections”, heavily intertwined and not accessible except for external tools’ deploy - this almost general censorship asking for meaning that the three quarters or more of people “contributing” here are NOT willing to discuss the TASKS outliners or other electronic tools are meant for, i.e. IM in the sense of
“where and which way to cut up the bits and how to (re)arrange them then in order for them to make the best possible sense”
, and, even more to it, react by pure, undisguised HATE when you dare developing such questions here, even when it’s proven that yes, you claim some expertise within these matters, but are also willing to renounce any firm belief on any argument (but not simple stone-throwing), came it from a substantiate reasoning, or be it just a differing opinion (like the one I quickly succombed to here the last days, not from “losing” within a discussion, but from my own introspection, triggered by just “adverse” opinionating).
Thus, I’m here within a forum where real dumb people rule, and where my defenders are harmed in their turn, again without arguments - we could riposte - but by stone-throwing, i.e. accusations that we hadn’t the “right” to say what we say.
The most amusing part in all this has been the insinuation here that my English was so sub-standard that even for other non-native speakers, it was an imposition of mine - yes, even the dumbest and most primitive native speaker has got a big advantage in the lingua france he undeservedly was born in over the rest of us.
Eduaro is wrong in thinking this is fun. In fact, he’s one of the very few other real expert in these mattters world-wide, and I respect him a lot, since his efforts to find viable ways of procuring alternative views onto your material are unique, even when I can’t get accustomed to his ways of subdividing your material. But then, he makes his living out of his particular answer to the “IM for individuals” problem, whilst I sold 5 “light” versions of mine, 15 years ago, which means it’s in his interest to punch away any alternative solution to his one, and even any alternative thinking that wouldn’t be in synch with what HE thinks is good IM for individuals - he never (or at least, rarely) had his say here, except when subject was his own offering, the same interactional behavior as was shown by the developer of IQ here. So his posting here is no accident, but interested stone-throwing, there again.
So, what we’ve got here, is 2, 3 or 4 contributors realizing the worth of my contributions to what is fundamentally a pigstall, i.e. a gathering of those aforementioned, together with a little dozen or so regular “contributors” just utttering crassness for the great majority of them, and perhaps 2 or 3 people in-between, i.e. having some valid info here and then, but also wishing I’d go to hell, presumably since that stance of “live and let live” isn’t regular to them but when not overshadowed but jealousy.
Of course this refers, among some others, to Steven who falsely poses as an outliner expert here and elsewhere but whose writings, nowhere, have ever taught me anything new, whilst those of the childishly-behaving guy why just came here to tout his solution, a year ago, then left, with sales not having realized, left right away, have: not his writings here, but his developments on his site have.
In his thread, Steven advised me to leave if this forum didn’t met my standards; in fact he expressed, please leave so that I can regain my position as the so-called “expert” here; my try to “make peace”, by pretending he delivered some argument to which I succumbed, was fruitless then.
My chose name in UR forum was schferk, Schweine und Ferkel, pigs and piggies, an acronym for “pearls before swine” - I told you so one year ago. This time, I took the time to explain myself with a little bit differenciation, and I certainly do not pretend ancient forum fellows here are “sch” or “ferk”, neither “swine” nor piglets, but as we all currently see, my contributions here were “pearls before swine” indeed, i.e. high-brow offerings to people who 1) didn’t appreciate them for their great majority, and 2) who openly despised them for a considerable minority, perhaps again for their majority.
In a forum where pearls are treated like just rubbish, I don’t have any place, of course, and had I had got the intellect of the Kant professor, I would have realized this years ago.
And no, Steven, there is no such available forum for interacting among developers, as there isn’t any such forum for writers or others: People having got real good ideas tend to withheld, not share them; I tried to break up this eternal rule, in vain, lack of iq I fear - the Kant professor, him, doesn’t try, but has assembled quantity of other people’s ideas good and bad, he’s not exposing his own thinking, or only to a degree.
Seems I can learn from people having a better understanding of the human nature, but I’m willing to learn. So, you’re again with your clappers, Steve, and with some people who try some bits in order to be helpful to people, but without stepping on your toes which would cost them their adherence to this beautiful, Google-pushed forum.
Phonies and their clappers rule, so be it here as everywhere.