|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 44
RESPONDENT: Is conflict endless – or does it begin and end and begin? RESPONDENT No. 21: It is endless until it is resolved. Most people do not resolve it. RESPONDENT: <SNIP> Do you know the adjective ‘passive’ as it is used in language arts (grammar)? Have you noticed how passive most of your language is? The words of Richard and many others you may read or interact with, even this very sentence, are in passive tone (‘voice’). All the definitions and theories are passive. Passive is for ideas, not action. ‘The black widow kills her mate’, now that is active – that is not speculation, yet again, so what? RICHARD: Are you sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’ and that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you do give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say that ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). The ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, I would be hard pushed to categorically state that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ as you do above. But perhaps this grammatical anthropomorphism made you a trifle reckless in saying that ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ as well? Just because sentence structure has a grammatical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘active voice’, or a logical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘passive voice’, it does not necessarily follow that life in the physical world has a ‘subject’ as in the psychological ‘doer’ (active) or ‘non-doer’ (passive) inside the agent. And not all descriptive sentences have to be ‘ideas, not action’ – for there can indeed be action without an ‘actor’ inside the active body – wherein ‘action’ is being described fluently by liberal use of ‘middle voice’ (wherein the principle interest is in the verb) without it being ‘definitions and theories’. Viz.: ‘The black widow spider’s mate is getting killed’ (or as I often say: ‘I am the doing of the happening called living’). Which means, just as ‘the word is not the thing’, that ‘the grammar is not the action’ or that ‘the syntax is not the activity’ ... once there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul inside the body being a spanner in the works (otherwise it is just hyperbole). The end of the cause of conflict means there is no need for ‘conflict resolution’ or any variations thereof. <SNIP> RESPONDENT: ESL means English as a second language. My reference to being your student was only figurative – a reminder to imagine you were responding to one ignorant of the intricate complexities of your language. RICHARD: Yet you say that you are a reporter and/or a journalist and I see that you were quite content to air your knowledge, of a rather abstruse aspect of English grammar, to another correspondent and give an interpretation upon ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. You may be fooling yourself into thinking you have fooled me with your pleading of ignorance, of the very same English grammar that you expressed so eloquently until questioned, but I am sure you will excuse me in that I keep my own counsel on the matter? RESPONDENT: I report sports (for about two months so far). Does that answer your question? What was your question again? Let me see – do I excuse you? It never crossed my mind, but if you excuse yourself or parody excuses, so be it. RICHARD: It would appear that you have some difficulty in focus ... you excuse yourself (further above) by asking me to treat you as ‘ignorant of the intricate complexities of [English] language’ yet (further below) you say ‘I don’t think passive/active is very abstruse ... I think passive/active is common and obvious’ ... and yet you are telling me that it is Richard who is making parodies of excuses? And all this prevarication is because you will not or cannot substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: I recently have done some reporting on the Tibetan Monks visiting our area, but I am switching to full time as an advertising representative. The journaling I did (to be printed) on the Tibetans’ visit to the Navajo reservation is quite interesting to me. I would be glad to forward a copy. RICHARD: Okay ... but in what way would it throw light upon your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? RESPONDENT: You have some ideas and images relating to journalists and me. If you do not excuse my claim to ignorance, first recall that rural Arizona small town newspaper are not known for language ‘above’ grammar school level. They call it grammar school because they are still working on grammar. If you still think I should know my trade better, you should see all the red ink the proof-reader puts on my stories. She thinks I should know better apparently as well! RICHARD: Contrary to your ideation about me, I do not have ‘some ideas and images relating to journalists and you’ ... I simply do not buy your story that I should excuse you on the grounds that you are, figuratively, a student of ‘English as a second language’ and ‘ignorant of the intricate complexities of [English] language’ and that, therefore, you will not or cannot substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Anyway, I don’t think passive/active is very abstruse, but I don’t really know what abstruse means. RICHARD: Apart from the fact that this is a waste of a sentence, in what way does it substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? RESPONDENT: I think passive/active is common and obvious. RICHARD: Good ... so are you sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’? Are you sure that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). Yet the ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, in what way does it substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? I do so look forward to your ‘common and obvious’ response ... without any more to-ing and fro-ing. RESPONDENT: You say I expressed myself eloquently and I wonder if you are just being sarcastic. RICHARD: Not at all. I was honestly commenting on the effectiveness of your eloquent persuasiveness, your gift of the gab: it stopped the correspondent you were writing to dead in his tracks when you laid that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ trip on him (he declined to respond and thus you did not need to examine your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end for validity). Thus your eloquence, your facile oratory, your expressive rhetoric, exempted you from having to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: If I was so eloquent, why is this conversation happening? RICHARD: Because, although you may be fooling yourself into thinking you have fooled me (into concluding that there is no need examine your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end for validity), you have not. This is because, grammatically, ‘passive voice’ is not ‘for ideas, not action’ at all, for it can be – and is – also used ‘for action and not ideas’ ... grammatical ‘voice’ is but a description of where, in the relationship between subject and object in a sentence, the focus is upon either the object rather than the subject or upon the subject rather than the object. RESPONDENT: Why did you critique my ‘critique?’ RICHARD: Because, this being a public forum, your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end – based upon an erroneous understanding of ‘active/passive voice’ grammar – underwent what is called ‘peer-group review’ ... it is where one is required to either ‘put up or shut up’. And somehow this notion of ‘putting up’ has failed to impinge upon your mind-set ... you are still slipping and slithering and ducking and weaving all the way through this post and avoiding having to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. * RESPONDENT: I read all of your response, but I have very little to say. RICHARD: So I noticed. Why? You had more than a little to say when you were expounding on Richard’s words to another correspondent. RESPONDENT: I was writing about something which I have now forgotten, but the reference to your style was just a tiny illustrative tangent as I recall. Do you recall otherwise? RICHARD: I do not have to recall – and neither does your excuse of ‘I have now forgotten’ hold water either – because the ‘reference to my style’ is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself that it is not ‘a tiny illustrative tangent’ at all. This ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ misunderstanding of yours is central to your ‘word theory’ and not tangential at all. It is the basis for your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. * RESPONDENT: You mention the long length of some of my posts. I think it is easier to read a biographical sketch or a joke than abstract philosophy. RICHARD: Am I to take it that I am to add ‘abstract philosophy’ to your ideation about Richard’s words being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’ and the ‘manipulation of ideas’? If so, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a mire of your own making. RESPONDENT: This is to be a long letter again, isn’t it. Do you have so much to say about this mire of my own making? RICHARD: Are you putting on some act for my benefit or are you genuinely dense? You keep saying that Richard’s words are ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ (and now ‘abstract philosophy’) yet what you write yourself is nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ ... not to forget your ‘abstract philosophy’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. Maybe the colloquialism ‘the pot (erroneously) calling the kettle black’ may convey the sense of ‘mire of your own making’ to you? If so, you may now proceed to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Or more questions about how you are to take my posts? RICHARD: No. I simply want you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Take them personally – respond personally as you see fit. RICHARD: Why on earth would I ‘take them personally’ ... they are nothing more than your ideations. All I want is for you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: If you are taking the length of some of my previous post personally ... RICHARD: Not at all ... it is you who has objected to the length of my posts, instead of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: ... using them to support a theory – isn’t as you see fit just whatever fits ‘as you think’? RICHARD: Yet this ‘as you see fit’ phrase is your phrase ... therefore you are now busily criticising yourself, instead of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. * RESPONDENT: On the other hand, reading No. 45’s retypes of K’s conversations didn’t tax me much. RICHARD: Indeed not ... a soothing lullaby never does. RESPONDENT: I am referring to the dialogues and group discussions primarily. Were you? RICHARD: Oh, any and all of them ... they are all a soothing lullaby and therefore much easier than substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps the eyes are given frequent breaks with all the skipped lines and that is a factor to easy following. I know that when I saw the ten inch paragraph that you made from my earlier post to No. 21 I recoiled. The enter and tab keys are our friends. RICHARD: Goodness me ... is this the best justification that you can come up with for not demonstrating,
substantiating, displaying, explaining or in any other way (a) backing your allegations about Richard’s modus vivendi RESPONDENT: Here is a fact – your paragraphs on this forum tend to be longer than ... anyone else’s. RICHARD: I have never claimed otherwise ... what has this to do with ‘frequent breaks’ and ‘skipped lines’ and ‘enter and tab key’? What has this to do with you substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? RESPONDENT: You still expect me to respond to a question about modus vivendi, but I have noted that I don’t know what those Latin words mean and you have not explained. RICHARD: Then this URL will be of use to you: www.m-w.com/mw/netdict.htm ... and after digesting the ‘No. 2’ meaning, you will be able to be getting on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: You also sometimes use the bullet – the indented and raised dot. Is that what you mean by modus vivendi? RICHARD: No, that is layout and formatting ... and this response of yours does nothing to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: You have a sentence that stretched over six lines above (on my formatting). That is extremely uncommon in newspapers (headlines) and advertising (slogans), but you could find long sentences in my posts – I just note that you do some rather long ones, too. With all the other issues you focus on, I don’t know what to say about ending conflict or ‘word theory’. RICHARD: Yet there are no ‘other issues’ that I ‘focus on’ except those ‘avoiding the topic’ issues of your own invention ... I am only interested in one thing and one thing only (which is what I first wrote to you about): your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ being grammatically wrong makes your conclusion that Richard’s words are ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’ equally erroneous. RESPONDENT: Did I use the phrase word theory? RICHARD: You do not have to ask me ... the phrase ‘word theory’ is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. Then you may get on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: You quote it like I did – I don’t recall. RICHARD: You do not have to ‘recall’ ... the phrase ‘word theory’ is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. Then you may get on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Or was I quoting someone else perhaps – wondering why they were theorizing words or whatever and trying to end conflict. RICHARD: You were not ‘quoting someone else perhaps’ ... the quote is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. Then you may get on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: No. 21 – that’s right – he was the other one involved ... RICHARD: Are you putting on some act for my benefit or are you genuinely dense? The name of the correspondent you were eloquently expressing your ‘word theory’ to is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. Then you may get on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: ... maybe he had some theory about how to end conflict and I was questioning it – questioning the intention to end conflict as struggling to end struggling – does that sound familiar? RICHARD: Indeed it does ... and it is all precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. Then you may get on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: I don’t know what you want me to say about it – what was your question? RICHARD: I am asking whether you are sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’? Are you sure that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). Yet the ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, in what way does it substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? * RICHARD: Is there no end to your requests on how I am to compose my responses to you before you will respond with substance? RESPONDENT: What did you call that – the question with the included insult? RICHARD: Where is the ‘included insult’? It is a fact that you either will not or cannot address yourself to the question; it is a fact that you keep on prevaricating and raising all kinds of spurious objections and request ... if you feel insulted then is it the facts that are ‘insulting’ you? In what way does this substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? * RESPONDENT: Your repeated questions have for me little impact ... RICHARD: Then why keep on asking me to repeat myself? RESPONDENT: Did I? I don’t recall asking you to repeat yourself once, but maybe I did. RICHARD: How about ‘try again as you see fit’ ... does that sound familiar? Perhaps now you will substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? * RICHARD: Why not answer, with substance, my very first response to you and save all this to-ing and fro-ing? RESPONDENT: Don’t you see how far removed this is from inquiry? RICHARD: Indeed ... and all because you will not or cannot answer, with substance, my very first response to you. Which was asking you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Now we are into implicit criticisms? RICHARD: I do not know what you are into ... what I am doing is presenting facts. And it is a fact that you have not yet substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: What is there here but to-ing and fro-ing? RICHARD: Hmm, as far as you are concerned that is all there is ... because that is what you have turned it into instead of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Where is the substance of your writing – not theories – but simple creative writing – narratives – expositions – questions? RICHARD: The substance of my writing is where it has always been: up-front, out-in-the-open, clearly explicated and available for all to see ... what has this to do with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? RESPONDENT: What is the action? RICHARD: The extinction of the cause of conflict (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). Psychological and psychic self-immolation, in other words. This is far, far more active than your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. RESPONDENT: Where’s the interaction – or is it just another long philosophical splurge? RICHARD: Am I to take it that I am to add ‘philosophical splurges’ to your ideation about Richard’s words being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? If so, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a mire of your own making. RESPONDENT: Do you take these questions personally? RICHARD: No ... there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ here. Therefore I do not come out with a theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Or do you laugh at them? RICHARD: Only if they are funny ... and I do not find your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ funny at all. * RESPONDENT: ... and I am saturated with the volume of your reply. RICHARD: If I may point out? My initial response was but 403 words, which is a scant 40 more than your initial post of 374 words. RESPONDENT: Actually 39, but you didn’t really count did you? RICHARD: Nope ... but now that I do make an accurate count I see that it is only 28 more words than yours ... which goes even further to negate your theory about ‘the volume of [Richard’s] reply’. Anyway, what has this to do with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: I don’t care about the numbers (but did you count the number of letters?) and it doesn’t make my response less honest to point out that I have at some point been voluminous. RICHARD: Yet all I am doing is responding to your objection. Viz.: ‘Your repeated questions have for me little impact and I am saturated with the volume of your reply’. It is you who has made it into a voluminous reply by avoiding having to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Now this is just to-ing and fro-ing – is that alright? RICHARD: That is up to you ... it is only ‘alright’ if you wish to keep on avoiding the issue and not substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Dare you count up some averages? RICHARD: Are you talking about ‘some averages’ on who has avoided the issue the most ... or are you still side-tracking onto who writes the longest posts so as to avoid substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: Who would care? RICHARD: I care ... over 160,000,000 people have been killed by their fellow human beings in wars alone this century and an estimated 40,000,000 people committed suicide in the same period. Unless there is action – unilateral action – there will be at least another 160,000,000 people killed by their fellow human beings in wars alone this next century and another 40,000,000 people will commit suicide ... not to mention the figures for all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and so on. Is this the fate which you wish for your fellow human beings? * RICHARD: To refresh your memory as to why this post has become voluminous:
So I did ‘try again as I saw fit’ and what is your response?
It is you who has made it into a voluminous reply. RESPONDENT: It’s all my doing, huh? RICHARD: Yes. And all because you will not or cannot substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Is it getting more concise every time we repeat ourselves? RICHARD: It is completely up to you as to whether you keep on side-tracking or focus upon the issue of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RESPONDENT: Maybe my non-compliance with exchanging a long response will challenge you to focus a bit more. Maybe not. RICHARD: Maybe – just maybe – you will discuss the substance of the issue instead of discussing how to discuss and arguing about how to argue? RESPONDENT: What issue? RICHARD: The issue of your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. RESPONDENT: What substance? RICHARD: The substance to demonstrate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: It is all just so many words. RICHARD: Your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ certainly is ‘all just so many words’. RESPONDENT: Even yours. RICHARD: Not so ... my words are an accurate self-report from a fellow human being sans identity ... which makes them direct to the point of human suffering. You will find that what is written is a factual account that clearly explicates how the human condition came about and how to free oneself from it ... and clear description of life in this actual world where peace-on-earth already always is. As this is a fact – and not a fantasy – this actual freedom, unlike the ineffable ‘Truth’, can be put into words. It is incredibly difficult to live in an hallucination twenty four hours a day ... which is why only 0.0000001 of the population have become enlightened over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years. There is as much misery and mayhem now as then ... when will the ‘Tried and True’ be seen for what it is? * RESPONDENT: As for the questions I asked some time ago, such as ‘does Richard use mostly passive voice’ or whatever, well, I asked them. RICHARD: They were not ‘questions’ ... they were definitive statements with nary a question mark in sight. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... all the definitions and theories are passive ... passive is for ideas, not action ... that is ... speculation’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Oh okay. So what? RICHARD: You were in error with your evasive answer ... that is ‘so what’. And all this because you will not or cannot substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Did you question whether you use lots of passive voice? RICHARD: I do not have to ... because your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ is erroneous. RESPONDENT: Or do you just want to discuss how to discuss and argue and blah, blah, blah? RICHARD: No, that is your agenda ... I am merely obliging until you get sick of it and focus on the issue and substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: If you disagree, did you do so in passive voice? RICHARD: It does not make any difference whether I did or not ... because your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ is erroneous. RESPONDENT: Are you saying I was speculating and defining? RICHARD: Yes, it is the pot (erroneously) calling the kettle black ... instead of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Is there anything you wanted to talk about besides the two lines above? RICHARD: No, I only want for you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. ... it is all so simple, non? RESPONDENT: It seems that is the only pertinent part of my voluminous statements that interest you. RICHARD: Yes, that is it in a nutshell ... I only want for you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: So are we there yet? RICHARD: I have always been here ... it is you who either will not or cannot answer the question and substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RESPONDENT: I am not offering answers, but sharing curiosity. RICHARD: If I may ask? How do you equate ‘sharing curiosity’ with ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever’ and ‘I can’t go with you and I don’t know why I would want to’? RESPONDENT: Maybe I was only sharing curiosity with No. 21! RICHARD: So I noticed. Now that you have realised that, will you – or can you – substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: I don’t equate those things and I did not. RICHARD: Do you now ‘equate those things’? Thus will you – or can you – substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: Is that all? RICHARD: Yes ... all I want is for you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: What is of interest to you? RICHARD: I am interested in finding out whether you are sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’? Are you sure that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). Yet the ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, in what way does it substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? * RESPONDENT: The answer is of no particular interest to me, and now we have lost the context of my comments to No. 21 ... RICHARD: Not so ... the context of your comments are precisely where they always have been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. RESPONDENT: Well I don’t recall why I brought any of this up to No. 21 in the first place. RICHARD: The reason why you did is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. And then you may substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: That’s what I mean by context. RICHARD: The context was about ‘active/passive’ and ‘ideas/action’ and ‘conflict/harmony’ and your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself before getting on with the job of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Why did something he say lead to those comments? RICHARD: His reason is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. And then you may substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: How did this subject come up? RICHARD: How this ‘subject came up’ is to be found precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself before getting on with the job of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Was it of any particular importance that I brought up your name? RICHARD: How on earth would I know? What has this to do with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: Or was I interrupting you and No. 21? RICHARD: No ... but this particular side-track enables you to avoid having to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: I think part of the original subject was wasting time with ideas or something, no? RICHARD: The ‘original subject’ is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself before getting on with the job of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RICHARD: The context was about ‘active/passive’ and ‘ideas/action’ and ‘conflict/harmony’ and your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. RESPONDENT: Fair enough. So what do you have to say about all this again? RICHARD: I am interested in finding out whether you are sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’? Are you sure that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). Yet the ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, in what way does it substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: I think I was making fun of his idea of endless conflict. RICHARD: What you were doing is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself and then substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: I was saying something like is action conflict? Or maybe not ... RICHARD: What you were saying is precisely where it always has been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself before substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: ... but I am now. Is conflict just an excuse for indecision or inaction? Or is the momentum to act and decide the source of conflict? RICHARD: May I suggest? Focus on the initial question in my first post before confusing yourself with more questions. Get on with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RESPONDENT: So if the question doesn’t interest you enough to examine yourself, so be it. RICHARD: Yet the question does interest me and I have been examining all along ... it is yourself that keeps on saying that you are not interested enough to ‘examine yourself’ ... not me. RESPONDENT: Did I say that I wouldn’t examine myself or examine things myself? RICHARD: I do not know what you do, or do not do, other than what appears in print ... and thus far you have not examined the issue at all or substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Oh yes and what was the question? If the question is does Richard use lots of passive voice, I have obviously already done some examining. RICHARD: Good ... could you put this ‘examining’ which you say you have ‘obviously already done’ into print? Because so far you have not substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ to me at all. RESPONDENT: Do I use lots of passive voice? RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not interested in whether you do or do not as it is an erroneous theory anyway ... and you will not or cannot substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: That’s interesting, but more interesting is when does passive voice fit and when does it not – more interesting to me. RICHARD: It did not ‘fit’, it does not ‘fit’ and it will not ‘fit’ ... ever. Which is why you will not or cannot substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: It’s not about us, but it’s not about excluding ourselves – yes this is about the how of communicating. The name of the patterns are not important – merely functional for a moment. Yawn! RICHARD: Hmm a ‘yawn’, eh? Are you getting tired of your own prevaricating? If so, why not just substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ and all this to-ing and fro-ing will be over? * RESPONDENT: If you see what seems an assumption ... RICHARD: It does not ‘seem’ to be an assumption ... it is an assumption. It is an assumption that (a) ‘passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... all the definitions and theories are passive ... passive is for ideas, not action ... that is ... speculation’ as an actual grammatical fact ... and it is also an assumption that (b) Richard’s words are ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘the manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. Are you interested in examining these assumptions? RESPONDENT: I brought all this up. Go ahead and examine what I brought up. RICHARD: I already have ... I am interested in your contribution. So far you have not substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: If I am interested in commenting on your comments, so be it. You can tell what I am interested in by what I am writing about. RICHARD: Okay ... what you do seem to be interested in is in not focussing on the question. This way you presumably get to avoid having to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RESPONDENT: ... take that as my opinion. RICHARD: I already did ‘take that as your opinion’ ... and I still do ‘take that as your opinion’. RESPONDENT: So what is your opinion? RICHARD: I do not have one nor even need one. It is a fact that you have not substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Did you share your curiosity or opinion or examinations of passive voice and ideas and so on? RICHARD: Yes ... but you saw them as ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ instead of substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: I know you did somewhat, but it didn’t directly spark much interest, so ‘try again as you see fit’. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey: here is an ‘active voice/tone’ sentence: ‘No. 44 ideated Richard’s modus vivendi’. It is this simple: in grammar, ‘voice’ indicates the relation between the participants in a narrated event (subject/object) and the event itself. The subject of an active verb governs the process as an actor, or agent, and the action may take an object as its goal. Thus a passive voice/tone of the above sentence could read: ‘Richard’s modus vivendi was ideated by No. 44. The activity remains the same, but the focus is different. The passive voice indicates that the subject is being acted upon. The topicalised goal of the action (‘Richard’s modus vivendi’) is the grammatical subject of the passive sentence and is acted upon by the agent (‘No. 44’), which is the logical, but not the grammatical, subject of the passive sentence. Thus ‘active/passive’ as a grammatical voice need not have correlations to active/passive physical events. Viz.:
In both (1) and (2) the pacifist remained physically passive (in foolish obedience to dictums handed down on high by bodiless entities) which knocks your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ for a six. * RESPONDENT: See if it fits or not ... RICHARD: It did not ‘fit’, it does not ‘fit’ and it will not ‘fit’ ... ever. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... that was all passive. That was all ideas about fitting. Okay. Moving on ... RICHARD: Let us not ‘move on’ too soon ... not until you substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ (and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’). * RESPONDENT: ... or just outright reject it because I don’t present any evidence. RICHARD: If I may point out? You do not ‘present’ anything other than quibbling about how to quibble ... and you do not provide ‘any evidence’ to substantiate even that. RESPONDENT: I am clear of that opinion or interpretation or whatever. RICHARD: Yet it is a fact that you have not substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. RESPONDENT: Given that you think it is quibbling, why should we go on – why go on quibbling? RICHARD: Given that you think that I ‘think it is quibbling’ – and not see the fact of your quibbling – means that there is very good reason to go on ... unless your plan is to live in ignorance? Why not substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ and be done with it? * RESPONDENT: But watch what you do, if you would. RICHARD: I did ‘watch’ and I do ‘watch’ and I will ‘watch’ as I already always ‘watch’ ... without any prompting from yourself. RESPONDENT: Watch out for assumptions of prompts. RICHARD: I did ‘watch out for assumptions of prompts’ and I do ‘watch out for assumptions of prompts’ and I will ‘watch out for assumptions of prompts’ as I already always ‘watch out for assumptions of prompts’... without any prompting from yourself. What has this to do with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? RESPONDENT: Watch out for assuming. RICHARD: I did ‘watch out for assuming’ and I do ‘watch out for assuming’ and I will ‘watch out for assuming’ as I already always ‘watch out for assuming’... without any prompting from yourself. What has this to do with substantiating your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? * RESPONDENT: Take an assertion as feedback – an accusation that may indeed be wrong, or indeed quite right. RICHARD: No ... many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you are suggesting. A person needs to demonstrate and substantiate their statement before I will consider it. RESPONDENT: Could you demonstrate and substantiate that? RICHARD: Yes ... I have over 1.0 million words from past E-Mails that clearly demonstrate this predilection that many, many people have. Shall I E-Mail them to you privately en masse or would accessing the archives one at a time be simpler? And when I do this simple thing, will you then demonstrate and substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’? * RESPONDENT: A conclusion that begs a question can be discarded as an assumption or questioned. RICHARD: Indeed, and it was ‘questioned’ by me and still is being ‘questioned’ by me ... the issue is: why will you not question it? RESPONDENT: Question what? Something I brought up? RICHARD: Yes ... you ‘brought up’ your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RESPONDENT: You questioning me is fine but why not just explore without reference to me? RICHARD: Why on earth would I (a) want to ‘explore’ your ‘word theories’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end ‘without reference to you’ ... and (b) want to ‘explore’ your ‘word theory’ about ‘the words of Richard’ being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘the manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’ ... also ‘without reference to you’? RESPONDENT: You keep talking about it. Don’t you want to explore any of this? RICHARD: Yet I did explore your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RICHARD: Are you into setting ‘homework assignments’ now on top of all your other requests? RESPONDENT: As you see fit. RICHARD: What I see is that you have not substantiated your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’. * RESPONDENT: That is my question for you. I am not requesting an answer. RICHARD: Oh, I am only too happy to answer your questions as I am vitally interested in the subject of the end of conflict ... it is what this Mailing List is purportedly set up for. RESPONDENT: I asked why not explore without me but you answered ‘why would I [you] want to?’ RICHARD: Indeed ... because that is my honest answer to you: I want for you to substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words nothing but ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’, ‘abstract philosophy’ and ‘philosophical splurges’ and not you having me doing all your investigation for you as a ‘homework assignment’. RESPONDENT: So, the end of conflict – go ahead ... RICHARD: May I suggest? Focus on the initial question in my first post before confusing yourself with more questions. What I am asking is whether you are sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’? Are you sure that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). Yet the ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, in what way does it substantiate your theory that ‘passive tone (‘voice’) is for ideas, not action’ and which makes Richard’s words ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’? Simply substantiate your theory and then we can take it from there, eh?
CORRESPONDENT No. 44 (Part Three) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
