John Greg wrote:As I previously posted, I have entered a comment on Zvan's blog, and one (yet to pass moderation) on Nugent's blog, responding to the initial statments from both Jack and Zvan. However, I have not yet passed moderation on Nugent's blog ... time? locale? ... I don't know.
Anyway, LeftSidePositive (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... ent-222421), who is without doubt one of the most virulent, angry, and offensive of the FfTB sociopathic ideologues, has, of course, iviscerated me, to the core, while ignoring almost all of my actual points.
Typical, I guess.
I have had, er, ah, arguments and confrontations with LeftSideDeficient before, and it ... no sorry, sh/i/t is not an individual who is overly gifted with reading comprehension.
Last note, I think that Jack's statement is really poorly written, and I truly wish he/she had asked someone with professional writing experience to proof it. His statement is overflowing with sentence structure errors, grammatical errors, logic errors, and so on. And such flaws really weaken the argument. Pah. Very, very disappointing.
Assuming you're serious about Jack's statement, feedback would be greatly appreciated. I was also involved in hammering out some of the grammar/wording/etc. We had our reasons for phrasing things in particular ways, I assure you, some of them intentionally obfuscated in order to keep things relatively short (an important consideration which takes a *lot* of work to accomplish, and could always be improved; eventually you have to compromise and go with 'good enough' rather than 'perfect'), as well as to stimulate further discussion.
But I am always open to critique, positive or negative, especially on this project. If you have specific passages or quotes that really bugged you, please comment with your thoughts. I'd be very interested, and would try to figure out better ways to say things, for sure. I believe Jack and Renee would probably concur (NB: Tim Skellett has recently withdrawn from the formal process, and will be doing his own thing I imagine; he's expressed that he does not feel he can fully support the position that was posted; I'll leave it to him to say more from his POV; I get the feeling it's not a personal thing, but an issue of how the 'structured dialogue' is structured into two 'sides', and he's not fully comfortable being put in that position/grouping).