> Joe can't understand you because of a kind of blindness you impute. Which is exactly how mystics stereotypically talk. "If you could only see what I see, you would know I was right, but alas, your third eye is still closed.?
Actually, many people can see what I see. Joe can?t see because he is blind with hate. You can?t see because you don?t want to. You subscribe to some strange philosophy of unseeing, ironically, for the sake of philosophy.
> Whereas I'm adopting a sarcastic tone, you'll say "now you understand, at last you're on topic?.
You are on topic. Impressed me twice. In most of the world, staying on topic is a good thing.
> The topic seems to be: what makes BH a genius and how might we modify our education system to help people realize their inner Bob?
Their inner bob, nicely put. Yes, when I teach I want the student to not only reach me but surpass me. Can I use this?
> Making what up again? What I think Joe sees is drivel. It's not like something fantastic where he's going "how on earth did you come up with such a brilliant thought?" but more like "do you have any idea how much more there is to promulgating truly useful theories??
Wait, are you saying I am on the wrong site? This is a book club isn?t it. Dang, I knew it.
> But we can't all be born geniuses can we?
Is that the same as saying ?Geniuses need not apply??
Excuse me for raising the intellect up several notches, and you guys can continue to do your little book club thing. I don?t cut in when you two are trading reviews. But when you make statements, or in your case, six dozen in one post, I might add a thought or two. If the thoughts are two heavy for you two to lift, then don?t try lifting them. As I told you before, there are people other than you two, reading these posts, that are quite capable of lifting them.