Frank Zubek posted Aug 10, 2013 7:14 PM (and five messages after this one). GSC's remarks follow FZ's first response below: > > GSC wrote; > The ideas and attitudes of a true discoverer are > quite 'different'. > > GSC > - ----------------------------------- > fz, I had no idea that there was a "attitude > brochure" > as far I know the world of thinkers, inventors, > mathematicians is just is dirty,cheating, laying, > steeling, so yes brutal in a sense almost as it is in > a real life of a pheasant, > something like a Jerry Springer show but played by > more sophisticated players. > For God's sake Fuller was one of the dirtiest players > on a scene, are you kidding me! > (SARCASM OFF) OK - but please do try and understand that it is not a matter of "attitude" alone: much more, it is a matter of "credentials" (see below). (SARCASM SLIGHTLY ON) But did you mean "pheasant" or "peasant"? In either case, your claim really is not relevant to my statement. (SARCASM OFF)
Again, with no sarcasm at all, I assert:
"The ideas and attitudes of a true discoverer are quite 'different'".
I suggest you go back to my entire post, including the New Yorker Story, "Manifold Destiny", to try and understand what I might have meant. (I do not have the time or inclination to explain that to you).
I have separately responded (with no sarcasm at all) to your description of those "magnets which only attract" (which I have not understood as yet).
Earlier than that, I had carefully read through your diatribes against Buckminster Fuller (and against Kirby Urner). I have not at all understood the case you've made against Fuller's "Synergetics" - but then I'm not a Synergetics expert at all.
I had requested a couple of friends of mine to study your case against Synergetics. (They too are not experts on Synergetics; but they are I believe slightly more knowledgeable than am I). One of them has responded after studying some of your documents telling me that he could not make head or tail of them - and he has refused to read the rest. I'm still awaiting a response from the other.
I agree that Buckminster Fuller was quite opaque in much (/most/all) of his writing, but he did have his seminal work on 'Geodesic Domes' to back him and and to ensure that people would struggle through his opaque writing. Kirby Urner seems to have done so, and apparently has derived considerable benefit from that. I personally have read through various parts of "Synergetics" - and have understood about 15-25% of those parts - and I find that much of that does have significant value: enough value to stimulate me to suggest that I'd be happy to collaborate, on appropriate terms, with someone who would like to work on making Fuller crystal clear for people at large. My 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) would be most helpful as an aid for working on this ambitious goal. You see, people are willing to make the effort for Fuller because of his invention of and seminal works on geodesic domes - his credentials have been thoroughly established by that seminal development.
Suggestion: Your 'magnets that only attract' may - if you or someone else could adequately demonstrate them - serve to establish your credentials (as the geodesic dome served to establish Fuller's credentials). Such credentials ARE important.
(If I respond to you again, the 'Sarcasm Switch' will probably be "ON").