Well, maybe we can have a candid chat at the snack bar about this quote, and the general idea Richard has written down many times, and that is the direct reproach given in being “taken aback by the implication and ramifications of such obvious ignorement /ignoration of my specific responses and explanations, online….”
It is not at all obvious “ignorement” unless one otherwise expects that other would at all times have remembered and considered everything one has said and written to them. I barely remember what I just said, let alone someone’s entire online repository of conversations.
As for my statement about “orthodox” actualism;
It is not at all “risible” unless you otherwise expect that I am ignoring the orthodox way that Actualism is presented in. Perhaps you thought “orthodox “ means something other than it’s literal meaning, but in both Richard’s response and your own, what explanation is there for this “taken aback, and risible” framing of his and your thoughts?
Is it truly such that you forget how ‘normal’ works and have to keep commenting on it? I am trying to understand this particular quirk.
I have been for the entire time “taken aback “ and found it “risible” that anyone free would be surprised at anything at all in the human condition, and it’s always seemed that Richard especially was taking “jabs” at people when saying these types of statements.
Honestly, it comes across as if Richard was “dropped in from the sky” and had no handle on what the others were experiencing. As if he had never experienced it.
In plain terms, it has always come across as both an uneasy indication that Richard wasn’t able to relate, even if only from memory, or was intentionally insulting people.
The “taken aback “ could do with some explanation.