Subsist on Visions of Crystalline Clarity?

In: /tuning/topicId_30178.html#32940

Bob Wendell said:

<< Anyone tempted to use these same archives to promote such a
view of Paul should reflect that in order to do so, it will take some
extremely heavy personal polarization in perspective capable of
distorting reality in just about any form and with whatever degree of
clarity beyond recognition to all except those afflicted with the
same distortional capabilities and unfathomable motivations. >>

In: /tuning/topicId_32963.html#33006

Bob Wendell posted:

<< GWS: If you want to resist the corporate homogenization of
>> imagination, you could try long strings of 4343 while everyone
>> else is doing 5252. :)

> KG: this was Paul's title of a thread and unfortunately it is much too
> late to resist as it is long past the time when it became
> homogenized. it has all possibly become the
> propaganda wing of the military
> I do not understand the long string reference at all. but then
> again i have the feeling i am not supposed to
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

Bob W.:
Whence comes all this paranoia?!?! I, too, fail to grasp a lot of
things posted here, but I suffer no delusions concerning plots to
confuse, confound, or keep me out of an inner circle of the elite
few. Considering the helpfulness I've found whenever I asked for it,
I find these implications impossible to sympathize with. >>

Yet, in: /tuning/topicId_30178.html#32940

Bob Wendell posted:

<< Lao Tsu said, "When you find an honorable man of great character,
look up to him and emulate him. When you find a man worthy of
criticism, look to yourself." We would all do well to follow such
sage advice. >>

J Gill:

From someone who has made a few attempts to offer information
helpful to Bob (successfully, I believe), and who feels as if that
goodwill has (in Bob's message #32940) been reciprocated
with his criticism for my own thoughts (in my message #30292)
which were not intended to in any way directly concern Bob,
who now (apparantly) sees a similar "dangerous utturance"
by Kraig Grady ("written up" by Bob in his message #33006),
I would ask:

(1) What benefits (to all) exists from (one person) expressing
a viewpoint which appears to imply some sort of "crystalline
clarity" existing in the communications between (other) parties
than Bob who post messages to ATL; and

(2) What happened to Bob's Lao Tsu quote, << "When you find a
man worthy of criticism, look to yourself." We would all do well
to follow such sage advice. >> ???; perhaps

(3) Bob is more fond of the first part of his Lao Tsu quote,
"When you find an honorable man of great character,
look up to him and emulate him."; so

(4) Thanks, Bob, for your "appreciation" of the time which
I have spent responding to you with technical (and other)
clarifications of my communications; and

(5) Now I know how you express such "appreciation"
of communications which *do* directly concern you,
that is - by commenting on the communications
which exist between others who *do not* directly
concern you.

Politicians speak for "others". Individuals speak
for "themselves" (thankfully). Why should Tom,
Dick, or Harry's communications be either
"sacrosanct" or "slimy". If such impressions
are indeed true, should not we be left to decide
such for ourselves, rather than see such parties,
and their respective opinions, eschewed by thou?

PS - If Bob feels that I have attempted to speak for
persons *other* than myself (such as himself) in my
posted messages, my apologies for any such
misunderstandings. I leave that to the individuals.

J Gill :)