Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: I find the layout of your site is inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to the eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny).

RICHARD: Here is what various dictionaries have to say about those last two words:

• ‘cheesy: inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty’.
• ‘corny: rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental; trite’. (Oxford Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: of poor quality; shoddy’.
• ‘corny: trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: shabby [inferior in quality], cheap [of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities]’.
• ‘corny: mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: clearly of cheap quality or in bad style’.
• ‘cheesy: lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting’. (Cambridge Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: tacky; cheap and tawdry’.
• ‘corny: unsophisticated and trite’. (Encarta Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality’.
• ‘corny: dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous’. (WordNet 2.0).

RESPONDENT: Not that I mind particularly, and it is a tiny superficial qualm, and it’s also ‘just how it seems to me’. But it does seem that way to me. What do you think?

RICHARD: I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you.

RESPONDENT: You said, repeating me, ‘I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you’.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I was not repeating you. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... unpleasing to the eye ...’.
• [Richard]: ‘... unpleasing to your eye ...’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Perhaps it is not superficial.

RICHARD: Obviously not (else why take the time to type out more of the same and use even more bandwidth to send it).

*

RESPONDENT: Could I be right?

RICHARD: Yes, you could be right.

RESPONDENT: Wrong?

RICHARD: Yes, you could be wrong.

RESPONDENT: Does it matter one tiny bit?

RICHARD: Obviously it does (else why take the time to type it out and the bandwidth to send it).

*

RESPONDENT: You concede that I could be right in finding the site cheesy and corny ...

RICHARD: You are way out there on your own in drawing that conclusion from my even-handed response ... here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘concede’:

• ‘concede: to acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit [‘admit’ implies reluctance in acknowledging one’s acts or another point of view]; to concede is to intellectually accept something, often against one’s will [example] ‘the lawyer refused to concede that the two cases had similarities’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: ... but could it actually BE cheesy and corny?

RICHARD: Again here is what various dictionaries have to say about those two words:

• ‘cheesy: inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty’.
• ‘corny: rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental; trite’. (Oxford Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: of poor quality; shoddy’.
• ‘corny: trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: shabby [inferior in quality], cheap [of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities]’.
• ‘corny: mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: clearly of cheap quality or in bad style’.
• ‘corny: lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting’. (Cambridge Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: tacky; cheap and tawdry’.
• ‘corny: unsophisticated and trite’. (Encarta Dictionary).

• ‘cheesy: of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality’.
• ‘corny: dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous’. (WordNet 2.0).

Thus what you are now asking is, in effect, could The Actual Freedom Trust web site actually be inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty/of poor quality; shoddy/shabby (as in inferior in quality), cheap (as in of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities)/clearly of cheap quality or in bad style/tacky; cheap and tawdry/of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality and rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental/trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental/mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental/lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting/dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous.

RESPONDENT: I asked you ‘Does it matter one tiny bit?’ And you replied, ‘obviously it does (else why take the time to type it out and the bandwidth to send it)’. And indeed you are right. It does matter to me. Is this a symptom of my lack of actualness?

RICHARD: No ... going solely by what you go on to say (further below) it would appear to be symptomatic of your penchant for determining whether a person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste (aesthetics).

RESPONDENT: Do YOU find it cheesy?

RICHARD: I do not find The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty/of poor quality; shoddy/shabby (as in inferior in quality), cheap (as in of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities)/clearly of cheap quality or in bad style/tacky; cheap and tawdry/of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality.

And, just for the record, neither do I find The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental/trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental/mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental/lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting/dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous.

RESPONDENT: Related to this, I’ve recently discovered a few pages on your site that are accompanied by the most appalling music.

RICHARD: A possible clue as to why may be found in what you have to say much further below:

• [Respondent]: ‘... lots of letters are slowly appearing on my computer screen and the woman to my right is extremely attractive but a bit aloof, and should I try and chat her up (won’t work, always fail in such situations), looking forward to having a cigarette when I step outside *the shop I’m in*’. [emphasis added].

In short: the quality of the playback of the midi-files you are referring depends upon the quality of a computer’s sound card and speakers ... even so some peoples have an aversion to electronic tones anyway (no matter how technically superior the quality of a sound system is).

RESPONDENT: Wish you were here, by Pink Floyd and other middle-of-the-road seventies rock classics.

RICHARD: You are now (‘middle-of-the-road’) talking about taste ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: I quite like the songs themselves, not ecstatically but a fair amount, but I find the versions of them here, aside from the jarringly crude recording, are, although not without interest, cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes).

RICHARD: As I am not a midi-file recordist I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether they have all been recorded in the manner you assert they have been or not ... if you could point me to where those midi-file versions can be found, which meet your criteria of recording excellence, it would be most appreciated.

Needless is it to add that if you cannot then what you assert here is purely rhetorical (designed for cheap effect)?

RESPONDENT: Either this is because a) my taste is irrelevant ...

RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement taste is indeed irrelevant.

RESPONDENT: b) my taste is wrong ...

RICHARD: Given that what is appealing to one person, aesthetically speaking, is as equally appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing that line of reasoning.

RESPONDENT: c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason ...

RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits:

• [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is poor music to my taste (and what is a poor layout to my taste) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [end example].

Now try the obverse:

• [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is excellent music to my taste (and what is an excellent layout to my taste) for some divinely inscrutable reason’. [end example].

And here is a third alternative:

• [example only]: ‘you have chosen particular music (and a specific layout) for an entirely prosaic reason’. [end example].

*

RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you.

RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh?

RESPONDENT: I am very willing to accept any of these options are true because they have all been true in the past.

RICHARD: Surely you do not go about determining whether each and every person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste in graphic design and electronic tones? If so, since when has your taste in same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)?

RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have.

RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/confusing/unpleasing/cheesy/corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit?

RESPONDENT: I tried to explain that I am not certain that you are fraudulent (I gave it as one of four options –

RICHARD: Here are your other three options:

• [Respondent]: ‘Either this [that a few pages on your site are accompanied by *the* most appalling cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary) jarringly crudely recorded versions of middle-of-the-road songs I quite like themselves] is because a) my taste is irrelevant, b) my taste is wrong c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [emphasis added].

As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/determiner indicates and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning and (c) as that particular music (and a specific layout) was chosen for an entirely prosaic reason then the only option left standing is option (d) ... to wit:

• [Respondent]: ‘my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: ... [I gave it as one of four options –] and given my pleasure at the actual written content – which I might not have adequately expressed – an option no more important than the others ...

RICHARD: As the others – (a), (b) and (c) – are demonstrably options without substance your follow-up comments add nothing to a sensible discussion. Furthermore, as you have elsewhere fleshed out just how much your particular taste plays a big part in your life it is disingenuous, to say the least, to now claim that you tried to explain you are not certain whether I am fundamentally fraudulent because of my choice of particular electronic tones (and a specific layout).

Just by the way ... are you aware of the difference betwixt electronic tones and instrumental notes?

RESPONDENT: ... and that I am not certain of my tastes.

RICHARD: It has nothing to do with being certain of your tastes ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps I don’t really feel that, or I didn’t express myself accurately enough.

RICHARD: Oh, you express yourself quite accurately ... are you familiar with the word ‘fastidious’? Vis.:

• ‘fastidious: scrupulous or overscrupulous in matters of taste, cleanliness, propriety, etc.; squeamish [excessively fastidious or scrupulous in questions of propriety, honesty, etc.]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Either way I am sure that I don’t understand what taste is or why it seems so pleasurable (a well-made salad dressing; not too this, not too that ...) and informative (the subtle manifest tip of the ice-burg of psyche), yet superficial (my taste is always changing) and deceptive (I still make extremely poor taste judgements; poor to who? To me a bit later). Where does taste come from?

RICHARD: From perception (sentience) itself ... the word ‘aesthetics’ is derived from the Greek ‘aisthētikos’, from ‘aisthēta’ (meaning ‘things perceptible by the senses’), which comes from ‘aisthesthai’ (meaning ‘perceive’).

Aesthetics are, fundamentally, based upon the human body and its relationship with the environment at large: this flesh and blood body, for instance, is of the male gender; has a heterosexual orientation; is of Caucasian stock; and is 6’ 2" high and weighs 12.5 stone ... change any of those bodily characteristics and aesthetic appreciation alters accordingly.

Further to that point, the quality, quantity and disposition of photosensitive receptors called rods (about 130 million cells which detect size, shape, brightness and movement) and cones (about 7 million cells which detect fine detail and colour) in the retinas varies from body to body and affects visual appreciation ... colour blindness being the most obvious instance. Similarly for auditory appreciation the range of frequency (hertz), or pitch, and intensity of tone (decibels), or loudness, can vary from person-to-person ... the phrase ‘tone-deaf’ bespeaks of the most extreme example. Also gastronomic appreciation (flavour) depends not only upon the quality, quantity and disposition of the taste buds (papillae) on the tongue, palate and throat/ larynx but upon the olfactory and tactile receptors as well – flavour is actually a combination of texture, temperature, taste and smell (the coolness of peppermint, the ‘bite’ of mustard or pepper, the warmth of cloves, and the astringency of spinach are all tactile, or touch, sensations of the lips, tongue and mouth in general) – and a surprisingly large number of people have some degree of ‘taste-blindness’.

Consequently, just as I do not even attempt to adjudge anybody according to my tastes (the aesthetic appreciation which this flesh and blood body enjoys), when someone seeks to impose their tastes on me – which also includes instinctual drives and, most likely, unexamined cultural aesthetics/ fashionable vogues as well – it all slides off me like water off a duck’s back.

RESPONDENT: You have been attentive to what it is to be a human and you must have noticed that mostly music and reading together splits the attention, which does 2 things: i) makes the reading less effective ...

RICHARD: Au contraire ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had more than a few pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) triggered whilst both listening to music (particularly Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side Of The Moon’ and ‘The Wall’) and reading what had been written during previous PCE’s and other outstanding moments.

RESPONDENT: ... ii) makes a stimulation craving/worried human feel better as there is no room for their sorrow.

RICHARD: If I might point out? An identity vitally interested in the meaning of life/peace on earth is not a stimulation craving/worried identity.

RESPONDENT: Why have you therefore included music over intense reading pages?

RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘therefore’ [endquote] refers to two invalid conclusions drawn from an erroneous premise your query as such has no answer.

RESPONDENT: Aweful music too. Really aweful.

RICHARD: As it is impossible to cater for all tastes I will pass without further comment.

RESPONDENT: Oh my gosh Richard! I just wanted you to answer me frankly what is ‘happiness’ and ‘freedom’ and look what you have done …

RICHARD: If, as you say, you just wanted me to answer you frankly what happiness and freedom is then why did you not just ask that?

And I only mention this because, instead of doing just that, you used 1062 words to get to your first question (‘First question: If you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant?’ ), then used 230 words answering that question yourself – after saying ‘I’ll give it a try, then you’ll have your chance to comment’ – which means that, after 1316 words of yours in total, you were wanting me to say something about memory.

Put succinctly: nowhere in your entire e-mail did you ask me ‘what is ‘happiness’ and ‘freedom’’ ... and, as I am not a mind-reader, you do need to put what you want – ‘I just wanted you to answer me frankly what is ‘happiness’ and ‘freedom’’ – into words that appear on this monitor screen so that I too can know what it is that you want of me.

RESPONDENT: ... instead of focusing on that question you preferred to come back to the same old insertions!

RICHARD: If you wish to see my responses as me preferring to ‘come back to the same old insertions!’ then that is your business, of course, yet what I am actually doing is responding to each point/issue/subject you consider important enough to share with me.

RESPONDENT: I used to do that, as everybody did when the internet started more than 10 years ago, but then I stopped.

RICHARD: How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and it is no problem to me whatsoever that you use the format that you do.

RESPONDENT: Why pretend to have a live discussion [dispute] by adding wood to the fire when it is already extinct?

RICHARD: As I am well aware I am not having a live discussion/dispute, but writing an after-the-event response to what was written some time previously, I do not pretend it is anything other than that (an after-the-event response).

Therefore, as there is no ‘fire’ in the first place your conclusion (that I am adding wood to it) is a vacuous comment.

RESPONDENT: Obviously you are not interested in what I say ...

RICHARD: As your objection to the way I conduct my correspondence (what you say are the same old insertions) shows that you overlook the content of my responses it is no wonder you have concluded I am not interested in what you have to say.

However, if (note ‘if’) you could see your way clear to actually read what my words say you will see that, on the contrary, I was interested enough to respond to each point/ issue/ subject you considered important enough to share with me.

RESPONDENT: ... (to you I am just a record player).

RICHARD: If I may point out? I made it quite clear in an earlier e-mail that where I discerned it was you speaking I would respond: as I responded to 49 points/issues/subjects you considered important enough to share with me your comment bears no resemblance to what actually happened.

RESPONDENT: You are not dialoguing with me, your mind is in what you want your audience to hear [read].

RICHARD: Au contraire ... whenever I am at the keyboard each and every word I write is addressed directly to the human being who typed the words I am responding to – and nobody else – as at the very moment of writing that human being has my total attention.

RESPONDENT: You shape my questions the way you like and ignored what I’d like you to tell me [explain clearly your ‘goods’: happiness – freedom – harmless].

RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have shaped your questions the way I like, and ignored what you would like me to tell you, I will most certainly attend to them ... and I do notice that the word ‘harmless’ has now mysteriously appeared to have been in what you would like me to tell you all along.

Just to refresh your memory this is what you wrote:

• [Respondent]: ‘... can I suggest to pick-up just the key words of your front-page? They are: ‘fully free and autonomous individual, living in utter peace and tranquillity’; ‘totally free from sorrow and malice’; ‘being happy and harmless’. For the sake of simplicity, may we shorten this list and concentrate on only two words: ‘free’ and ‘happy’? If you are free, you are happy and the inverse is also true. But do we know what freedom and happiness really is? Could we try to make this as clear as possible? Are you interested in this? First question: If you don’t have feelings what else could happiness be if not a feeling when you remember the past which was pleasant? I’ll give it a try, then you’ll have your chance to comment.

Dear No 18,

I am writing in regards your communications of Sunday 31/10/2004 3:35 PM AEST and Thursday 04/11/2004 1:29 PM AEST.

I am expecting that this finds you in Blooming Health and Good Cheer as it does Yours Truly.

You enquire as to why I never say Hello (or even Hi) as an introduction when I reply to a co-respondent, not to mention never addressing them by their name, and that you are asking this question most respectfully yet so far (within the four days) have not had any response ... and further enquire as to whether it is a simple question or not.

First of all, No 18, it is indeed a simple question and, like most simple questions, can be answered simply.

A discussion list is just that – a discussion list – and not a letter-writing facility.

With my best wishes to you and yours,

I remain, etc.,

Most cordially,

Richard.

RESPONDENT: I do not appreciate you editing my messages without so indicating, and playing words games. It is dishonest. See Below.

RICHARD: Here is the passage you are referring to in the first instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial, as ‘I’ is a reference point to the body ...
• [Richard]: ‘The use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun – as in ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is used to refer to the psychological and psychic ‘self’ (the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’) parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body per favour blind nature ... the use of the first person pronoun sans scare-quotes refers to the flesh and blood body only.
• [Respondent]: ‘This is where you have edited my message without indicating so.

Do you not see I inserted three periods after the word ‘body’ to indicate an interjection? And, speaking of dishonesty, since when has coming to conclusion – as in your ‘I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial’ phrasing – which is based upon a misrepresentation (that the use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun refers to the body), when it has already been pointed out previously that such usage does not, been honest? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I would like to do anything I can to assist this organization in its endeavours to help people understand that ‘I’ can be used merely as a reference point to the physical body ...
• [Richard]: ‘The use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun – as in ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is used to refer to the psychological and psychic ‘self’ (the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’) parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body per favour blind nature ... the use of the first person pronoun sans scare-quotes refers to the flesh and blood body only.
• [Respondent]: ‘Okay. (‘Re: Correction’; Tuesday 27/04/04 AEST).

Put simply: to say ‘I do not think the approach of ‘I’ is that beneficial, as ‘I’ is a reference point to the body’ is to say, in effect, that the approach of the body is not beneficial ... which is to be making a straw-man argument (wherein something somebody never said is critiqued/commented on as if they had actually said it).

Here is the passage you are referring to in the second instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘You are saying there is no centre.
• [Richard]: ‘Au contraire ... the feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself), which affective ‘presence’ is the instinctual passions genetically endowed by blind nature in action, is most definitely in situ for perhaps 6.0 billion or so peoples on this otherwise fair planet we all live on.
• [Respondent]: ‘You are playing word games now.

First you tell me I am saying something I am not saying (as in your ‘you are saying there is no centre’ assertion), then you tell me I am doing something I am not doing (as in your ‘you are playing word games now’ conclusion), and now you tell me I am being something I am not being (as in your ‘it is dishonest’ diagnosis).

I have read through the remainder of your e-mail and, as it is of a similar ilk as before (that various religions/religious teachers are saying the same as what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site when sprinkled with a little salt shaker), there is nothing of substance to respond to.

What I would suggest, at this stage, is to put aside your little salt shaker and read what is on offer with both eyes open.

RESPONDENT: Are you a lawyer by training or a television news editor?

RICHARD: Neither. Although I had about fifty different part-time jobs at odd times during my working life my main occupation, having obtained a tertiary education in the fine arts in my mid-twenties, was as a practicing artist (mainly in ceramics).

RESPONDENT: You are fond of taking one sentence out of a whole paragraph or page and drawing a conclusion from it. This is law 101. Or perhaps it is equivalent to the sound bites that are the current staple of news programming. One frame is snapped out of a whole sequence and you draw a conclusion from that. I object your honour. You can’t make a case beyond a reasonable doubt on a snapshot here and a snapshot there.

RICHARD: If I may point out? You are not even making a mountain out of a molehill – there is nary a molehill to be found in what I wrote – as you are building a case upon nothing: I expressly stated [quote] ‘the following is fairly representative of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is on about (that is, if anything he has to say can be)’ [endquote] and, further to that qualifier and caveat, not only provided the book title, the book chapter, and the book publisher, for each quote, but an on-line link where each reference can be accessed so as to ascertain whether any of the quotes have been edited too much, taken out of context, or in any other way not really representative of what is being presented.

Apart from which I have no intention whatsoever of exceeding the ‘fair-use’ copyright laws.

Now here is an interesting thing: did you, in fact, follow-up the online references and establish that I was, in fact, not making a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that I was, in fact, taking a sentence/snapping a frame and drawing a ‘law 101’ conclusion from that?

Is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti not saying that thought is the problem after all – in which case the book ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’ should be re-named ‘Thought Is Your Friend’ – and is he also saying that there are no instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, coursing through him, as a flesh and blood body only, to take care of everything else when thought is not operating?

Or is all of what you have to say (above) about ‘law 101’ abstract theory which has no basis in fact?

RESPONDENT: Well, I’ve spent enough time reading the site to know that my letter will be blocked by Richard’s ego, as No. 4’s was.

RICHARD: Apart from starting your very first post to The Actual Freedom Mailing List with an abject air of resignation, in what way do you predict that your letter will be blocked? And in what way was No. 4’s post blocked? He had specifically stated that he wrote only to share his thoughts, and was not looking for anybody’s answers, so I responded suggesting unambiguously that reciprocity was far, far better than one-way monologues. I would call that ‘opening-up’ a discussion rather than ‘blocking’ ... would you not agree?

RESPONDENT: Or replied to ‘predictably’ with Richard’s usual over excited egotistical arrogance ...

RICHARD: Hmm ... this is the second time that you have used this word ‘ego’ – and now in combination with ‘arrogance’ to boot – and my experience on Mailing Lists has shown that it is usually female correspondents who throw this meaningless contribution to dialogue into the ring. May I ask? What do you hope to achieve with such pointless taxonomy?

RESPONDENT: ... feigned harmlessness, cut and paste laziness and of course those impressive ‘big words’ that make him look like an inconsiderate idiot. Then one of his parrots will come to their guru’s defence using his cloned vocabulary and corrupted aggro attitude.

RICHARD: My, my ... you do go on. Nevertheless, I am only too happy to attend to your worries:

1. You do not know me personally so you have no way of knowing whether my harmlessness is ‘feigned’ or genuine.

2. I do not ‘copy and paste’ out of laziness at all ... it is just that there is only a finite number of ways of saying the same thing differently before one starts duplicating what one has said elsewhere. I basically said all I had to say with 114,000 words in my journal years ago ... and the count is over 2,000,000 words by now. Also, experience has shown that someone may not ‘get it’ the first time around, or the second or third, but will have it sink in on the umpteenth repeat. And there is also the matter of not being able to remember who I have said what to and when and where ... nor knowing whether what I wrote to person ‘A’ was read by person ‘B’ anyway.

3. You are not the first person to have a problem about another’s erudition and scholarship ... yet the English language has upwards of 650,000 words in it. Do you really suggest that I restrict myself to the usual 4,000 to 6,000 that is the extent of the vocabulary of the average person? If so, why? Must all peoples remain semi-illiterate just because peoples like yourself find linguistic expressiveness to be ‘inconsiderate’ towards those lacking the gumption to flex their minds with what you revealingly call ‘impressive big words’?

4. The use of the word ‘parrots’ is like the throwaway ‘egotistical’ line you used above ... easy to say and contributing zilch to investigative dialogue (and ‘parroting’ is a word to describe mindless imitation of another anyway).

5. As I am on record as saying – over and over again – that I am a thorough-going atheist through and through I hardly see why you bother to try and hang the appellation ‘guru’ upon me. But then again, it is so easy to chuck these phrases around, is it not? Much easier than thinking things through for yourself, eh?

6. It is very difficult for anyone to say the same thing whilst not using the words and phrases of one another ... somewhat like your use of ‘ego’, ‘egotistical arrogance’, ‘impressive big words’, ‘inconsiderate idiot’, ‘parrots’, ‘guru’, ‘cloned vocabulary’, ‘aggro attitude’, ‘thick skulls’, ‘alienating’, ‘wanking’ ... but never mind ... you would make a good engineer.

RESPONDENT: Yet after all this ridiculous ‘get out’ my question is; why do none of you have the intelligence to work out why the list only gets 2 letters a day!

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I would have said because it has not been operating very long and is not advertised ... but maybe you could give me the benefit of your acumen?

RESPONDENT: Why does it not dawn on your thick skulls how alienating your exaggerated attitudes are ...

RICHARD: Perhaps you know a way, of publicly broadcasting the fact that each and every person alive today has got it 180 degrees wrong, without alienating anyone? Are you for real?

RESPONDENT: And why on earth is Richard trotting out a may listening-l post?

RICHARD: To drive a point home ... did you get it?

RESPONDENT: To keep something already dead, alive and wanking??

RICHARD: Ahh ... so you did not ‘get it’, I see. Never mind ... stick around and I am sure to copy and paste it sooner rather than later.

RESPONDENT: Tacky tactics man.

RICHARD: Seeing as you know so much about the subject of delicate communication skills, maybe you could suggest some ‘non-tacky tactics’ for me? But then again, maybe your tactics in this post a shining example of how to not alienate people? If so, methinks I will stick to my method.

RESPONDENT: You might have stumbled upon something, Richard.

RICHARD: I can assure you that I did not ‘stumble upon’ an actual freedom – if that is what you mean by ‘something’ – as it took eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here.

RESPONDENT: But at the rate your going someone else, with enough intelligence and love for his fellow human beings to learn how to communicate, is going to get the actualism message across because your failing miserably.

RICHARD: Oh? May I ask why you need me to love you?

RICHARD: ... [I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication] ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

RESPONDENT: I and others on this list understand the above more than you might give us credit for, but ...

RICHARD: If I might interject (before you go on with your modifier)? Do you and those others on this list you refer to understand the above (that latter half of my sentence) now that I have re-inserted the first half you snipped off?

RESPONDENT: ... [but] is it inconceivable that the *style* in which you do it puts people off?

RICHARD: It is not inconceivable that the way sentences form themselves at this keyboard might be off-putting for some peoples ... many years of experience has shown, however, that such peoples were not ever on in the first place.

RESPONDENT: Any serious (as in sincere) person who comes to AF is impressed, (as I still am) with the breadth of topics under discussion and the fresh approach to reducing and eliminating human misery, but more often than not, conversations with you follow the same pattern where the other person quickly tires/ gets-frustrated and leaves/ despairs of getting any clarity in the matter.

RICHARD: Hmm ... by way of example, then, I will ask you again whether you have actually read all of the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? And whether you have familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Whether you are thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to? Whether you have read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Whether you followed-up every URL they posted? Whether you accessed every book reference they quoted? Whether you looked for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Whether you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to?

And the reason why I ask is because if you have or had done so you would know for yourself why such people quickly tire, get frustrated, and leave, for they will not find what they are looking for here (the oft-repeated assertion, from my co-respondent at the time, that actualism was re-branded Zen Buddhism should be a dead giveaway as to why).

RESPONDENT: In most conversations I have had with you, I have had to sometimes shake off my impression that the discussion we were having was becoming more and more pedantic and restart without any such bias, and I am pleased with the results. I have learnt much from you.

RICHARD: I always find it cute when clarity in communication is taken to be pedantry.

RESPONDENT: But maybe others are not that patient.

RICHARD: Or maybe, just maybe, they have a vested interest in ambiguity in communication?

RESPONDENT: Since people who visit this website and mailing list are within the human condition, is it too much to suggest that your conversational style is mostly counter-productive ...

RICHARD: Yes, it is indeed too much to suggest ... and had you actually read all of the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end; and had you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange; and had you thus been cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to; and had you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list; and had you followed-up every URL they posted; and had you accessed every book reference they quoted; and had you looked for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list); and had you kept all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to, you would never have suggested such a thing in the first place.

For a person seeking to advise another in regards seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] it should be startlingly obvious by now that some extensive swotting is definitely in order.

*

CO-RESPONDENT (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957).

RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909456484

And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909449803

Finally, here is my response to that reply:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909452231

If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.

(...)

RESPONDENT: ... in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RICHARD: ... Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in.

CO-RESPONDENT: I happen to know that No. 74 appreciates all of this.

RICHARD: How on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written by a prick, a prick that is not a caring human being, a prick that is aggressive, a prick that is arrogant by nature?

RESPONDENT: I appreciate very much the fact that you correspond with us on issues of great mutual interest. I appreciate very much what you have to say (not how you say it), I appreciate very much the hard work and time and money you put in to address the many questions that come to you ... yet I did not find it easy to appreciate your way of communicating, your conversational style, your (apparent) inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, and so on and so forth.

RICHARD: Whereabouts in the conversation in question – anywhere at all in that exchange spanning 34 e-mails – is it [quote] ‘apparent’ [endquote] to you that there is an inability on my part to get my co-respondent’s point of view?

And, for the sake of clarity in communication, my co-respondent’s point of view was that: <snipped list of co-respondent’s point of view>

RESPONDENT: I am coming more and more to realize, however, that your style is almost a requirement if the cherished beliefs are to be relentlessly exposed and the common wisdom thoroughly dissected to be the hogwash that it is.

RICHARD: How come you can call common wisdom [quote] ‘hogwash’ [endquote], right after informing me about my apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, without even so much as batting an eyelid whilst you do so?

And while you are at it ... how come my co-respondent (above) can use similar words, such as muddle headed, buffoonery, drivel, nonsense, and so on, without you being [quote] ‘overly concerned about that particular conversation’ [endquote]?

Is it a case of one rule for Richard (in that he makes apparent his inability to get the other person’s point of view) and another rule for you and them (in that yours and their point of view does not make apparent yours and their inability to comprehend clarity in communication when it is staring you and them in the face)?

RESPONDENT: The fact that you are exact, precise, cross-reference another’s mails, use the dictionary definitions of words, carry a conversation through to an end (which may be construed as not letting the other one go without concluding that he is mistaken and that you are pushing people into a corner) can be considered a power-play or can be considered a thoroughness in examining the issue at hand without concern for hurt-feelings, loss-of-face, etc.

RICHARD: Why should anything thing I write be [quote] ‘considered’ [endquote] to be motivated by something other than what it actually is (that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication, for no other reason whatsoever than I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later)?

RESPONDENT No. 47: Not too long ago in the past, ‘I’ wanted acceptance by as many as would accept ‘me’ – so I used to be very fluent in ‘identity talk’, speaking/ writing/ listening in a style that was very much approved by other identities; and, as a consequence, ‘I’ was usually liked by nearly everyone in ‘my’ life.

One of the reasons I enjoy seeing Richard correspond is because he writes things that can be so challenging, to one’s socialized ‘being’, as to be perceived as aggressive (thus making him out to be a very unlikeable identity) – which is the main reason why ‘I’ would always remain silent when seeing another’s fundamental contradictions; and therefore maintain a friend/an ally who would most likely also remain silent when seeing one of my own. Consequently keeping each other in the dark – that’s how much we cared.

I have seen Richard lose countless potential friends/ allies by refusing to play this game. And this game was therefore more important to them than whatever is on offer on the Actual Freedom website and list. No 47 to No 60, 3.2.2006

*

RESPONDENT: I don’t criticise Richard for being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc.

RESPONDENT No. 47: How exactly would you go about doing this, No 60? How could you explain to somebody that their most treasured feelings/noble ideologies/optimistic dreams (those very things that give meaning to their life) are fundamentally flawed in that they have never and will never bring about peace-on-earth, without the possibility of coming across as ‘aggressive’, ‘arrogant’, ‘hostile’ and ‘unfriendly’?

As an example, the first girl who I fell in love with was nothing less than perfect to me; she gave meaning to my life. But when someone informed me, in a very kind and considerate way, that this girl was actually only interested in older guys (despite her telling me otherwise)… I resented this person and denied the evidence put forth.

After several months of digesting what had been presented to me, and seeing the facts of the matter for myself, I realized I had thoughtlessly shot the (friendly) messenger of a very factual but unpleasant message – and the style of the message was flawless, it was the substance I had a problem with.

Now, here is the thing, even if actualism was all substance and no style I would have still been interested enough upon first approaching it to get to where I am now. As the style, which I personally find a lot of fun by the way, is only very partial – it is the content, the substance of the words, that interests me. No 47 to No 60, 3.2.2006a

*

RESPONDENT: I don’t criticise Richard for being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc. Never have. I do think it would be possible to do all of that in a friendly and peaceful way though.

RESPONDENT No. 47: How exactly would you go about doing this, No 60?

RESPONDENT: See below for an example:

[begin example] No. 47: How could you explain to somebody that their most treasured feelings/noble ideologies/optimistic dreams (those very things that give meaning to their life) are fundamentally flawed in that they have never and will never bring about peace-on-earth, without the possibility of coming across as ‘aggressive’, ‘arrogant’, ‘hostile’ and ‘unfriendly’?

As an example, the first girl who I fell in love with was nothing less than perfect to me; she gave meaning to my life. But when someone informed me, in a very kind and considerate way, that this girl was actually only interested in older guys (despite her telling me otherwise)… I resented this person and denied the evidence put forth.

After several months of digesting what had been presented to me, and seeing the facts of the matter for myself, I realized I had thoughtlessly shot the (friendly) messenger of a very factual but unpleasant message – and the style of the message was flawless, it was the substance I had a problem with.

Now, here is the thing, even if actualism was all substance and no style I would have still been interested enough upon first approaching it to get to where I am now. As the style, which I personally find a lot of fun by the way, is only very partial – it is the content, the substance of the words, that interests me. [end example]

RESPONDENT: See?

RESPONDENT No. 47: Would you by chance consider the possibility that a ‘friendly and peaceful way’ of communicating coexisting with a ‘persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc.’ type of communication is different from a ‘friendly and peaceful way’ of communicating without a ‘persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc.’ type of communication?

I ask since I have a life of experience with the latter – and a relatively recent acquaintance with the former; which, out of fear, I do not always pursue.

RESPONDENT: I don’t much care about this style issue (I just don’t like the denial that there is an issue for many people).

RESPONDENT No. 47: The way I see it – When somebody is physically ill, a competent doctor will instruct certain actions to be commenced in order for the patient to become healthy again – regardless of the manner in which the prescription is expressed, what is prescribed will work the same.

Somebody who truly desires to get well will gladly follow the prescription in spite of any affective ‘issue’ they may encounter with the doctor or his style of communicating.

However, since the human condition is not considered an illness by many/most – and actualism is even less likely to be considered the cure

I am not at all surprised that these issues gain the same importance, if not more, than the prescription itself. Especially as my experience has shown that the style is mostly a manner of expression steered by the substance (few or no emotional impediments).

RESPONDENT: I resent …

RESPONDENT No. 47: So do ‘I’ :o)

That’s why, just as I was angry at the messenger because I thought that there was a hidden agenda – a lie in progress – where there actually was none, I see that you too are angry/get angry (a form of resentment) for reasons which you have already explained.

However, in this case, I can relate more to your feelings than to your reasoning; so I hope you excuse me for being a bit skeptical about your claims, which seem logically sound, but are at best influenced by resentment – or at worst based on it.

RESPONDENT: [I resent] the oft-repeated implication that an objection to the style of actualists is necessarily an avoidance reaction to the content. The two can exist simultaneously, and there can be one without the other. They are orthogonal.

RESPONDENT No. 47: In the ‘real world’, I suppose so – and you are living proof of it, right? But, in the actual world (as the flesh and blood bodies that we actually are), or even with common sense operating, there are only so many ways you can describe a simple white sheet of paper – and since the expression of such is not the thing in itself, and both parties involved intimately know this, there would never arise any such conflict as the one you are currently experiencing; even when detailing such complex things as is the human condition.

RESPONDENT: If someone criticises an actualist’s style, must it necessarily be the content they are really objecting to if the truth be known?

RESPONDENT No. 47: No, and I hope you see the resemblance, but I cannot recall ever criticizing the wrapping paper on my favorite birthday presents/Christmas gifts as a kid.

RESPONDENT: Can’t it be that the style sucks, independently of the content? I think it can.

RESPONDENT No. 47: Well, if by ‘sucks’ you mean – ‘To be disgustingly disagreeable or offensive’ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suck Could anything ‘disgusting’ or ‘offensive’ ever come into existence in a non-affective refreshingly sensuous world?

However, if you’ve watered down the word ‘sucks’ to just mean ‘disagreeable’- Then, yes, I think it can too. Like when I am ill and have to take antibiotics, it ‘sucks’ how some of the tablets come packaged… it’s such an ordeal to open it! When I tear the protective covering, sometimes two (or even three!) pills come tumbling out when all I needed was one.

Of course, this never happens when I open the package with scissors, which make a near perfect cut, but then I have to go look for the scissors! Man I tell you, if I’m ever in charge of the packaging design of antibiotics here in Mexico – I am going to make sure they are more easily accessible, aerodynamic, colorful and whatnot.

But, in the meantime, I’m sure glad them pills exist as they have cured me more than once from a potentially fatal disease… and, curiously enough, I have yet to come across somebody who didn’t take them because of the packaging design.

RESPONDENT: I think some of the actualists, led by Richard himself, communicate in a way that needlessly alienates people who would otherwise be interested in exploring more of the subject matter.

RESPONDENT No. 47: If the people who made possible this exploration ‘communicate in a way that needlessly alienates people’ and these alienated people consequently ceased ‘exploring more of the subject matter’ because of a feeling of alienation… then all it took was one feeling to stop the exploration and I sincerely think they will be better off because of it as they don’t need to spend any more time on something they are not sufficiently interested in.

Now, if someone insists that they don’t feel alienated but that they are in fact being alienated – then all it took was being on the receiving end of an emotional offence to stop the exploration and I sincerely think they will be better off because of it – as they don’t need to spend more time on something they know is both dishonest and perverse.

Besides, purposefully alienating others for egocentric reasons requires malice – and if there is malice in these here actualists, then why even listen to them/why stick around?

Or, if the alienating is not done purposefully but rather in denial – and they clearly will not budge from their position – then why even listen to them/why stick around?

I can only think of a few reasons, some things ‘I’ could/would do, and because I am aware of the motivation that may lie behind these and what it entails for ‘me’ – I understand my disinclination to be ‘persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc’ when it comes to interacting with my fellow human beings; and therefore the extent to which I care for them. Actual Freedom List, No 47 to No 60, 7.2.2006

RESPONDENT: I fixed the actualfreedom site to have better and readable fonts – http://userstyles.org/styles/4664.

THE DIRECTORS: The screenshot sample provided at that link displays a version of the ‘Affective Feelings (Emotions, Passions and Calentures)’ web page – which is currently located at actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/feelings.htm in The Actual Freedom Trust website Library – with a plain grey background colour replacing the shelves-of-books background image, the text set to Verdana typeface, instead of Times New Roman, on a plain white tabled foreground, with a slightly larger font and the words [quote] ‘Make the Actual Freedom website more readable. Background images are removed and font family is set to Verdana with slightly bigger fonts’ [endquote] appended above.

First and foremost, the directors never considered, for even a moment, that The Actual Freedom Trust website was in need of being fixed (made more readable/have better and readable fonts) else they would, of course, have done so already.

RESPONDENT: Okay.

THE DIRECTORS: As to say okay is usually to express agreement with, approval of, assent or acquiescence to, something being all correct or all right (or in a weakened sense being satisfactory, good, adequate, not bad, or so-so) it is therefore somewhat odd that, despite thus conveying how the directors are correct in having never considered, for even a moment, that The Actual Freedom Trust website was in need of being fixed (else they would, of course, have done so already), you then go on, further below, to disagree completely ... and in no uncertain terms (as in your ‘this is silly’ response for instance) as well.

*

THE DIRECTORS: Second, neither the presence nor the absence of the background shelves-of-books image – a bookish image which enhances the library theme – has anything to do with the text being more or less readable as the text is situated on a tabled foreground.

RESPONDENT: Right. Background image in current AF site is largely ignored by the reader.

THE DIRECTORS: First and foremost, all what we were pointing out was the fact that, because the text is situated on a tabled foreground, neither the presence nor the absence of a background image has anything to do with text being more or less readable.

Second, and because neither the presence nor the absence of a background image has anything to do with text situated on a tabled foreground being more or less readable, we neither said nor even suggested that the background image on The Actual Freedom Trust website is largely ignored by the reader.

Third, we have no way of knowing whether or not the reader largely ignores the background image on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Last, but by no means least, you do not have any way of knowing (whether or not the reader largely ignores the background image on The Actual Freedom Trust website) either.

*

THE DIRECTORS: Third, as the Times New Roman typeface – one of the most successful and ubiquitous typefaces in history – is widely used around the world (for book typography for example) then the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

RESPONDENT: It is not just a personal opinion.

THE DIRECTORS: We never said that it was just [quote] ‘a’ [endquote] personal opinion, as in that singular way, but clearly referred to it as being a matter of personal opinion in general – as in that plural way – because the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, having no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged (by virtue of it varying as it does from person-to-person) is a matter of taste.

*

RESPONDENT: It is widely considered to be a more readable font than others (such as Times New Roman).

THE DIRECTORS: Whether it be widely or narrowly considered (that Verdana typeface is more readable) is beside the point as it is still but a matter of personal opinion.

*

RESPONDENT: Here is a report that validates my claim –
http://edtechfm.sdsu.edu/bhoffman/type/font/FMPro?-db=order.fp3&-lay=results&-format=viewresults.htm&topic=002&-sortfield=NTopic&-sortorder=descend&-find.

THE DIRECTORS: By way of demonstration, then, here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their subjective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’):

• [quote] ‘... both these experiments are still *highly subjective*. That is, we ask subjects to tell us which type samples they judge to be easiest to read’. [emphasis added].

As subjective=personal, in the context which the words ‘a matter of personal opinion’ further above are being used, then the author is saying virtually the same thing as that ... only in even stronger terms. For example:

• [example only]: ‘(...) the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of highly subjective opinion’. [end example].

Even more to the point, however, the author immediately goes on to say that [quote] ‘speed and accuracy are two other ways we can test readability’ [endquote] and advises that there is an objective experiment, which shows how those same type faces stack up against each other in those terms, at the following URL:

http://edtechfm.sdsu.edu/bhoffman/type/fontobj/FMPro?-db=timer.fp3&-lay=web&-format=viewresults.htm&topic=001&-sortfield=NTopic&-sortorder=descend&-find

Here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their objective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’):

• [quote] ‘Essentially, *it doesn’t seem to matter what type font you use for screen display* – people will read your educational Web site or CD-ROM just about as quickly and accurately in Times or Helvetica as they do in Verdana or Trebuchet’. [emphasis added].

Ergo, it is indeed the case that the suggestion about Verdana typeface being more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

*

RESPONDENT: You must also understand that the choice of fonts in a website is not a ‘either or’ situation.

THE DIRECTORS: We are cognisant of the fact that the choice of fonts in a website need not be an ‘either or’ situation.

*

RESPONDENT: That is, you can specify *both* fonts in CSS such that users who do not have Verdana installed (which is quite rare when most of the population is running MS Windows) will see Times New Roman. The font-family CSS property is used for this: ‘This property specifies a prioritised list of font family names and/or generic family names. To deal with the problem that a single font may not contain glyphs to display all the characters in a document, or that not all fonts are available on all systems, this property allows authors to specify a list of fonts, all of the same style and size, that are tried in sequence to see if they contain a glyph for a certain character. This list is called a font set’. – http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-family-prop.

THE DIRECTORS: Whilst your input is appreciated it is not in accord with what we clearly want ... to wit: that The Actual Freedom Trust website design and layout be viewed the way we want it to be viewed (else we would have, of course, already made it otherwise).

*

RESPONDENT: Here is a report that validates my claim –
http://edtechfm.sdsu.edu/bhoffman/type/font/FMPro?-db=order.fp3&-lay=results&-format=viewresults.htm&topic=002&-sortfield=NTopic&-sortorder=descend&-find.

THE DIRECTORS: By way of demonstration, then, here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their subjective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’):

• [quote] ‘... both these experiments are still *highly subjective*. That is, we ask subjects to tell us which type samples they judge to be easiest to read’. [emphasis added].

As subjective=personal, in the context which the words ‘a matter of personal opinion’ further above are being used, then the author is saying virtually the same thing as that ... only in even stronger terms. For example:

• [example only]: ‘(...) the suggestion that Verdana typeface is more readable is surely but a matter of highly subjective opinion’. [end example].

Even more to the point, however, the author immediately goes on to say that [quote] ‘speed and accuracy are two other ways we can test readability’ [endquote] and advises that there is an objective experiment, which shows how those same type faces stack up against each other in those terms, at the following URL:

http://edtechfm.sdsu.edu/bhoffman/type/fontobj/FMPro?-db=timer.fp3&-lay=web&-format=viewresults.htm&topic=001&-sortfield=NTopic&-sortorder=descend&-find

Here is what the author has to say, on that webpage, after giving the results of their objective experiments (under the heading ‘What does it mean?’):

• [quote] ‘Essentially, *it doesn’t seem to matter what type font you use for screen display* – people will read your educational Web site or CD-ROM just about as quickly and accurately in Times or Helvetica as they do in Verdana or Trebuchet’. [emphasis added].

Ergo, it is indeed the case that the suggestion about Verdana typeface being more readable is surely but a matter of personal opinion.

*

RESPONDENT: You must also understand that the choice of fonts in a website is not a ‘either or’ situation.

THE DIRECTORS: We are cognisant of the fact that the choice of fonts in a website need not be an ‘either or’ situation.

*

THE DIRECTORS: Third, the subject of font size has been canvassed a couple of times before ... for one instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘I think the text [on The Actual Freedom Trust web site] is very small, and the size can’t be changed by readers. Please remove the size setting in html, so grandpa also can read it.
• [Richard]: ‘Would it not be far simpler to suggest to Grandpa he use reading glasses (such as I do), or even alter the DPI setting on his computer to a larger size, than having to get others to make changes so as to suit him? Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No. 88, 27 Apr 05

RESPONDENT: Now this is silly. Most grandpas don’t even know what DPI is, let alone change it.

THE DIRECTORS: In order to successfully inform another person (in this case Richard is that person) that what they have to say is silly then it almost goes without saying that what they had to say does have to actually be silly (else it is what the informer has to say which is silly).

The following points are immediately obvious:

1. You have completely ignored Richard’s primary suggestion (about using reading glasses just as he does).
2. Your exclusive focus on Richard’s secondary suggestion (as if it were the only one) is a clear indication that Richard’s primary suggestion is not silly.
3. Your usage of the word most means you are stating it is a fact that more than half, at the very least, of the grandfathers using computers do not even know what DPI is (let alone how to change it).
4. You offer no supporting evidence that more than half, at the very least, of the grandfathers using computers do not even know what DPI is (let alone how to change it).
5. Even if (note ‘if’) it were true that most grandfathers do not know what DPI is you are overlooking the fact that operating systems have in-built accessibility options – such as a magnifier for instance – whereby it is not necessary to know what DPI is.
6. Even if (note ‘if’) it were true that most grandfathers do not know how to make use of the in-built accessibility options operating systems have (such as a magnifier for instance), whereby it is not necessary to know what DPI is, you are overlooking the fact that they can simply put on their reading glasses, just as Richard does, instead.

Ergo, what Richard has to say is not silly on both counts.

*

RESPONDENT: You may find the following report instructive: ‘The most widely known principle for supporting seniors’ computer use is to support larger font sizes than those younger users prefer. The principle may be well known, and it was indeed confirmed by our study, but still, it is frequently violated by sites that freeze text at a tiny font size’. – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/seniors.html.

THE DIRECTORS: We do indeed find the above instructive (albeit not in the way you obviously found it to be) because it exemplifies the very reason why The Actual Freedom Trust web site design and layout is fixed so it cannot be changed by readers ... namely: their blatant attempt to not only impose a fixed standard of aesthetic appreciation (as in ‘the principle’ phrasing) but to enforce it by making out that any deviation from their collective opinion is a violation (as in the ‘frequently violated’ phraseology) of their collectivised principle.

Put succinctly: they are attempting to kill creativity and impose conformity to their (collectivised) taste ... commonly known as social engineering.

*

RESPONDENT: Never mind senior citizens. For anybody in general, font size matters – ‘Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained about small font sizes or frozen font sizes; about one-third complained about low contrast between text and background’. – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html. – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html.

THE DIRECTORS: As the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged it is, obviously, not a matter that can be subject to the whims of the ballot box.

*

THE DIRECTORS: • [Richard]: It is so much easier changing oneself than trying to change other people. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, Respondent 88, 27 Apr 05

RESPONDENT: Right. It is so much easier to change one website’s CSS than asking other people to wear glasses, change the font size manually (by View –> Font Size), hack around it (like I did), etc. :-)

THE DIRECTORS: Even though you say [quote] ‘Right’ [endquote] as if you are in agreement with what Richard has to say – that it is far simpler to use reading glasses (such as he does), or even alter the DPI setting to a larger size, than having to get others to make changes so as to suit oneself – you are not actually agreeing to any such thing at all (and thus have, obviously, missed the point).

Here, then, is a useful word:

• ‘sham: attempt to pass off (something) on a person, attempt to pass off something on (a person), by deceit’. (Oxford Dictionary).

And the point is this: there are literally billions of people on this planet and anyone who would obligingly accede to each and every one of their personal tastes/ predilections/ desires/ needs/ demands/ whatever would have a life-time task with still no success at the end ... which is possibly one of the reasons why operating systems have accessibility options (such as a magnifier for instance) built into them.

For what it is worth, all of the directors (one of which is a grandparent and each of whom has to wear reading glasses no matter which website they access) have no problem whatsoever reading what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

*

THE DIRECTORS: Lastly, and more of a general nature (purely for future reference), the aesthetic appreciation of website design and layout, being a matter of taste and varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged.

RESPONDENT: Lack of no fixed standard does not imply absence of recommended practices.

THE DIRECTORS: It does indeed imply an absence of recommended practices ... if (note ‘if’) every single website designer, without exception, conformed to ‘recommended practices’ – conformed to other peoples’ collectivised taste – creativity would be killed stone-dead.

*

RESPONDENT: You might find this an interesting read – http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040913.html.

THE DIRECTORS: It was indeed an interesting read ... for just a few examples:

• [quote] ‘The need for web design *standards*’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘Site designers build components of a *whole* [world-wide-web]...’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... users are viewing the entirety of the Web as a *single*, integrated resource’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... many sites don’t fit into *the big picture* ...’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... they [many sites] deviate from *expected norms*’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘Here’s my definition of three different *standardisation* levels’. [emphasis added].
• [quote] ‘... we should establish design *standards* ...’. [emphasis added].

Basically, the author is seeking to impose certain (collectivised) standards under the guise that the world-wide-web is an integrated whole with (collectively) fixed design and layout standards that individual websites must conform to.

Here is a not-so-subtle clue: any social engineering –> creeping conformity (socialisation); a stealthy socialisation –> creeping collectivisation (socialism); an insidious socialism –> creeping autocratism (communism).

*

THE DIRECTORS: We appreciate your interest.

RESPONDENT: I’d be very willing to provide any technical help related to AF website.

THE DIRECTORS: If, as a result of this brief email exchange, you can now discern the difference between aesthetic and technical help it will have all been well worthwhile.

The following should be of interest:

• [Richard]: ‘... it is a well-known adage that taste cannot be legislated against (although there are those who try)’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, Respondent 90, 23 Jul 05

In fact, as the very subject of aesthetic appreciation (in regards to matters of taste, no objective standards, attempts at imposition, and so on) is well-canvassed in the email exchanges the above quote comes from, there will be no more emails on the topic from us.

We appreciate your interest.

Yours sincerely,
The Directors
The Actual Freedom Trust