fuster wrote:

a logical demiMondor ???
ce n’est pas possible

fuster wrote:

Jackson was brought up heavily religious in NowhereMuch, Dakota, and came to NYC a dope-smoking, acid-dropping player who busted his ass every second on the court.

I love him for all that. I don't know where he went wrong.
@ CK MacLeod:
I wish I could use your C doesn't understand x because y geometrical defense. I wish I could but I can't. The slash through NA m is really funny. Since you are a logic demi-god to me, I will bow to your insights.

@ fuster:
No. Where I was going with that is that he lived off Jordan and now Bryant. I've never thought he was much of a spiritualist, and his whole rep rubs me the wrong way, especially since he's very caught up in ideology. Like his no timeouts bit. He believes in not calling timeouts. He holds on to the idea as a fundamentalist mentality. How about just reading each moment for what it is and doing what's needed according to present moment engagements? If it hadn't been for Jordan and Bryant, his reliance on ideas would have failed. Ideology always fails. Sports teach us that unless your karma sucks like Phil's and you end up being too lucky to learn what you need to learn. That's just an idea, of course, and I don't care if it fails.

@ CK MacLeod:
That is kind of perfect. If you write the book, I think you should change your moniker to C.C. MacLeod.
fuster wrote:

thought an easy rider was the guy living off the pros.

Like Phil Jackson?

CK,
the whole CC Rider thing is actually so you in respect to word play. After bringing the song up here myself, as a connection to you referring to yourself as C, I did some research. C C actually refers to See See, which relates to Easy. An Easy Rider is a skilled prostitute. "You made me love you and than your man done come." The man is the woman's pimp.

@ fuster:
You could put that to song.

@ fuster:
Nice. Ralph rescuing his soul. Here's the down the middle C C pick...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVeAir7FxVY&feature=related

@ CK MacLeod:
You're right about the proposition and I did think that silence was an appropriate response. Being a meanie, I just didn't admit that. So no need for desperation. I wash just fishing. It's okay not to bite.
Fuster could post a C-C Rider YouTube as a response.

@ fuster:
I think we're getting the silent treatment, Fust.

fuster wrote:

Why don’t you either accept what seems to be the rather obviously overwhelming probability that the thing is what it is or, at the least, accept that I an too witless to possess clarity of a sufficiency to be worth belaboring further about it.

This is an important question, Colin. In a weird way, I think if you really answer it truthfully, what you admit to will go to why you believe me to be a new-age meanie.

You're welcome. Again, don't go changing for me. I like the way you write even when it sometimes confuses me a bit. That's part of the fun.

Hi you guys.
Again, interesting stuff. Since I read these posts and comments more out writer interest than political interest, it should come as no surprise that I liked the turn on the "final solution" phrase the best.
And it may be too late for Fuster to be still paying attention, but I have a suggestion. I imagine the person(s) you were dealing with on the other blog just wasn't getting you in the way you describe. However, if you wanted to make it less difficult for him (them) to not get you, it would help for you to construct your sentences differently. I've been waiting to make this point for awhile, and I think you've given me the right in here...
fuster wrote:

Do you get the point about the Pakistanis being assaulted in Bahrain not being excusable because of some different Pakistanis who are still in Pakistan?

You could make it two sentences. I know it's not the most complicated sentence in the world. It's not the longest either. But if you really want someone to get you, it would work better to write that like this:
Do you get the point about it being inexcusable that Pakistanis are being assaulted in Bahrain. It's inexcusable because some different Pakistanis are still in Pakistan.
That way not only have you made things clearer to him (them), but you've also made it easier for you. The way that new way reads makes it more obvious if you need to elaborate. Maybe you've made the point clearer to him in previous comments and there's no need to elaborate. Maybe you need to explain why Pakistanis still being in Pakistan matters in this context. Either way, you'll be able to tell by your own writing.
Now I know you know how to write. Maybe you just forget how most people read. It's not pretty--especially on the internet. And of course I'm sure that your work as a lawyer makes the kind of writing I'm suggesting less attractive. You want to have fun on the internet. You do have fun. I have fun reading what you write in the way you write it. But if you want people to get you, then you have to help them a bit more than you do.
Just a suggestion.