For My Friend 1st Warrior (et al) … On Brevity, Meta, Metaphors, Smorgasbords, Cookies, Buckets and Thimbles
Last evening, in another thread, 1st Warrior wrote …
Mac - getting my last degree required me to read a lot in a very short time frame ('Member - Law School), so I learned how to read five chapters and SYNOPSIZE the content into, possibly, a paragraph. Usually in three to five sentences.
Brevity A. Mac - not volume - not loud - not repetitious - not laudable - Brevity.
You should try it sometimes. :-)
And when I was getting my degree in biology, I had to learn the common and Latin names of every phylum and class of the plant and animal kingdoms ... that, for starters.
Then, there was the genus and species names for most North American birds (ornithology), those of bacteria, Protozoa, et al (microbiology), comparative vertebrate anatomical structures, physiological processes …
Years later, I had to learn the names of all the major and minor artists of the Italian Renaissance, the titles of and iconography in their works, dates executed (within 5 years either way), and, the current locations of the works (this for the graduate degree … after some 60 hours of art history to qualify for acceptance to a degree program).
And then there were courses in labor law, arbitration and mediation and collective bargaining.
We acquire knowledge in different ways, at different rates, and for different reasons … the need to cram for an exam, for the sheer love of subject, and/or to share … sometimes to make a point, or, more importantly, to distinguish between bullshit and reality.
The point is, we can learn, and, communicate what we learn in brief or in full or in between, depending on how thorough our objective happens to be, and, at times, how intent we are on poking a finger in the eye of the intentional or inadvertent purveyor of propaganda, vitriol and outright lies!
In discussion/debate, litigation, arbitration … or in our personal relationships … knowing what we're talking about gives us credibility.
And, knowing some will disagree because they know better, some, because they just need to be "right" even when they aren't, and, that some, just to break 'em for you ... you lay it all out there ... not for the ball breakers, but, IN GOOD FAITH, for the right to say to those with honest intent, "I took the time and made the effort, and gave you the respect of doing so".
Got no issue with brevity, 1st; if I put out a smorgasbord of information, you are invited to fill your plate, just put a cookie in your pocket for later … or walk on by without touching so much as a crumb. No one forces you to stuff yourself or even to come to the table.
If we ever go fishing together, 1st, I'll give you brevity … the only words you're likely to hear from me all day is, "Whoa, sunset already, where'd the time go?"
It's Free Knowledge, my friends … bring you own container and I will try in my most sincere way and to the best of my ability to fill it to overflowing … be it a bucket or a thimble.
Peace.
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
― Anne Carson
This does not constitute a slam article. It is not attacking 1st. It is explaining Mac's POV. This could have been easily a comment in an article and stood.
And, as usual, A. Mac did an excellent job and can truthfully say, for the most part, I enjoy his "dialogues", "soliloquies" and "points on point" because they do serve to advance his discussion.
A. Mac and I have both been on opposite sides of the table in our working careers - he as the Union Representative during contract negotiations/arbitrations and disciplinary hearings - I on the Management side as the Labor Relations Director and we both understand, I think, that "full disclosure" of facts and stipulations means each side being allowed to have its say with the strongest hopes that both sides are discussing the same thing.
Blue - law is not just reading and regurgitating - it is reading, comprehending and being able to utilize what has been presented. Sure, there are many, many interpretations that can be afixed to the subject matter, but the primary concern is being able to explain, as simply and concisely as possible, how you understand the many varied potential impacts that each and every interpretation you "discuss" may result in a non-sequitur decision.
Example - I have read and re-read the Marshall Trilogies 'til it's coming out my ears and have had many strong discussions with my professors over various passages where they and I have different interpretations. But, the bottom line is that I/we, the students, were encouraged, over and over, to seek/look at potential impacts on the trilogies if they were written in the late 1800's/early 1900's/early 2000's based on the historical/traditional occurrences of the Indian/governmental interactions according to those times. I can tell you that it created some serious heartburn - having to get out of your box and see other "potential" directions Indian Law could've gone.
However, the primary point I have tried to make is that - even though I can read through most/any case law dealing with Indian Law, I have been drilled on responding in concise/precise language where there is no doubt as to what/where the intent is leading. The same holds true with any discussion board. You NEVER want to overload nor underload your response 'cause it can and does lead to confusion. State your premise, respond concisely and the discussion will move as intended. If it doesn't - re-evaluate and determine if further response/explanation needed. If you feel you have been as concise and adequately addressed your points - no need to go further 'cause you will only muddy the water.
BF - not a CoC violation. If you believe it is, point out the section/sentence and make your stipulation.
Perrie - thanks for allowing this to proceed. I may not always agree with some of Mac's dissertations/thesis's, but his points, for the most part, are valid points and should be considered and cogitated for proper understanding. That's his training - his M. O. - that's who/what he is and I fully accept him as he is.
"Hey, got a nibble."
Many thanks and much respect, 1st!
Respectful disagreement and thoroughness for the purpose of generating understanding, is a recipe for human interaction and civility.
We have debated issues from opposite sides of the table … and remain friends and mutually respectful … another good recipe.
As for …
"Hey, got a nibble."
Bring that critter in, take its picture, gently release him back to the stream … and I'll buy you dinner and a drink.
You're a good man, 1st!
Can we have some venison??????
Can we have some venison??????
For a friend, anything on the menu …
DEER me … he wants venison.
Let us not FAWN over that.
But remember, won't be much FAT to chew on - get my point(s)?
But remember, won't be much FAT to chew on - get my point(s)?
Got it … in the interest of brevity … avoid chewing the fat.
'Course, with old dudes like us, when we find we can't cut the mustard … we may have to be content with just licking the jar.
Don't forget the lid - best flavor waiting on the ridges.
"Hey, got a nibble."
LOL... well done!
Mac - I generally enjoy sitting on the side lines and reading the posts from both you and 1st.....unless it's directed towards me. And you both can present very compelling arguments......unless it's in opposition to me. lol :0)
Issue solved - don't disagree with us
