The Axiom System - Part 1 - Introduction

@jaxu said in #30:
> I will read it when you provide a 1 paragraph summary. So many words about very little - chatgpt would be proud!
HAHAHA

@DailyInsanity :

I am sorry. All I tried to say was:

I was impressed. I read 2 parts and there was something - not information - but something that kept me curious and got my attention. You are great in rhetorics.

But I don't think that it is helpful, at least not for me.

I am not a native speaker. But is cheeky the correct word? People don't call me cheeky, they call me frank. But I am not a native speaker. It is possible that I do accidently mistakes in English.

At least you understood one "cheeky line" wrong:

This "... if I will do in the next part." ... That was not about "if you will write it" or not. It was about "if there will be information" or not. I am sorry, My conclusion: It isn't helpful for me so it isn't helpful for anyone is wrong and not friendly.

@jaxu said in #30:
> I will read it when you provide a 1 paragraph summary. So many words about very little - chatgpt would be proud!

You're right - maybe I should make my posts into tweet-sized bites to generate more interest and engagement! ....wait a minute, I just saw your latest post - changing my mind ;)

@SmaragdElefant said in #32:
> @DailyInsanity :
>
> I am sorry. All I tried to say was:
>
> I was impressed. I read 2 parts and there was something - not information - but something that kept me curious and got my attention. You are great in rhetorics.
>
> But I don't think that it is helpful, at least not for me.
>
> I am not a native speaker. But is cheeky the correct word? People don't call me cheeky, they call me frank. But I am not a native speaker. It is possible that I do accidently mistakes in English.
>
> At least you understood one "cheeky line" wrong:
>
> This "... if I will do in the next part." ... That was not about "if you will write it" or not. It was about "if there will be information" or not. I am sorry, My conclusion: It isn't helpful for me so it isn't helpful for anyone is wrong and not friendly.

Yes you're right - 'cheeky' in this context is quite a charitable interpretation for 'rude' (which is different from 'frank' by the way - although those that gleefully pride themselves on being self-proclaimed 'brutally honest' seem to often misunderstand this).

Given your evident lack of fluency with the language, in the future you should perhaps hedge your statements when, for example, accusing someone of intentionally obfuscating for the purposes of 'advertising' etc...

@DailyInsanity said in #33:
> You're right - maybe I should make my posts into tweet-sized bites to generate more interest and engagement! ....wait a minute, I just saw your latest post - changing my mind ;)

It's not about engagement - it's about effective communication. Too much "meta-explanation" and faffing about, not enough actual explanation.

Sometimes one has to be patient, as from another perspective, possibly coming from within our fog of yet unknown, but from someone else thinner fog exploration and digestion, may come a new point of view that won't fit in our expected chunk size or FOV and window of time available.

I am currently squeeze myself beyond my abilites, from a unexpected convergence of things to do (and want to do). But I can see that the author has put a lot of deep thought into this. So, I will come back to this.. and wish patience on both side of the communication challenge. take the time and visua space needed. author and readers. And I vote for discussion to clear the fog even further (my personal favorite, attention grabber).

I don't think this is a one blog pursuit. It took me some time to see that. I guess we get formatted by our tools, don't we.

Brevity is an art. This was extremely frustrating to read.

New level of confused blog text about chess. If you find every chess book to be useless to you, please don’t tell us.

@Schtaeve said in #37:
> Brevity is an art. This was extremely frustrating to read.

I can certainly understand that perspective, but please appreciate that it's a numbers game, and you can't please everyone. Maybe you are a thorough and meticulous reader, but not everyone is.

If I aimed for brevity, then these forums would be flooded with people misinterpreting (and arguing under these misinterpretations), instead of people telling me how verbose I am. I've experienced this several times before, and it's frustrating to constantly clarify or leave critiques unaddressed.

Unfortunately I had to pick my poison. Of course I could be a better writer, but I tried my best to achieve all objectives - unfortunately on the internet that's seemingly impossible.

@BongoOve said in #38:
> New level of confused blog text about chess. If you find every chess book to be useless to you, please don’t tell us.

I don't find every chess book to be useless - there are many great chess books out there!