I have not asked to modify already written desrciptions, but to limit the citation of principles to at most ca. 1/3 altogether, in what is and will be written. (Principles in numbered chapter headings excluded.)



Not only books. It can as well be about my approach to go theory in general.

So you are grumpy because he is not interested in what you have to say? Because even if you have some ideas about PR, he still has the right to decide how his work gets treated? Because maybe, in this case, what you think and know about PR does not concern him? I mean... dude... let it be.

Even if you are right in everything you say, think, and know (and I am sure you are) - I can see RJ's point in this case of not being eager to get involved about a tangential discussion about advantages of this or that PR approach. Even though I am actually with you on this one - RJ's PR skills leave a lot to be desired, and I myself have had many talks with him about this very subject over the past 15 years or so. He never listened, or if he did, he was good at hiding it.

In this case, however, a PR sub-discussion would just further dilute this excellent thread. As well as being off-topic and immaterial - since RJ expressed his wishes, and for the purposes of this thread - that's all there is to it.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Yes, I meant to say - modify his behavior in future, sorry. This is what others have said, and I agree, was about to support this view but then used different words.
Bad Bantari, bad bad bad!!!



Well, this is a different topic, but yes, you are right. Study journals can be centered around pretty much anything, inspirational watercolor painting of a daffodil, for example. Your approach to Go theory as well, sure. In this case, however - we are talking about one centered about a trio of books, so this is what I have written about.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

That's actually quite generous. Any reasonable review should be far under that fraction.

The books are easier to follow than many posts. They are not just continuations of argumentative L19 threads.

Of course, I understand there's a difference about a very deliberate text (a book) and a less deliberate text (a thread.) But for personal reasons I have decided to refrain from buying any books by Robert for the time being.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

The books are better written and more concise. The English language versions, well I didn't think they'd been proofread or edited when I read First Fundamentals, it was very obvious that a non-native speaker had written it. Whether this is an issue for you will vary, the point is usually clear, the phrasing may just be a bit jarring and distracting from the text. However, since the go-book world is so small this seems to be something petty to not buy a book over to my mind unless English is not your native language and you don't have near native fluency where odd phrasing may create a lot of problems for your understanding of the text.

One's mileage, as always, will vary.

The language should not be an issue here. Since I'm also a non-native I'm quite lenient with odd grammar constructs, and since I know quite a bit of German I could even follow germanized English, but from the excerpts of the books and his posts I don't think language should be the issue here. As I said, it's for personal reasons I'd rather not elaborate publicly right now. Thanks for quipping in, though.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

(just to do a bit more than only click “like” )

Thank you, MJK! This was all I needed to read to be happy in this regard, and I happily anticipate reading your reviews, fondly remembering how much I enjoyed the few of your “lovelove” posts I was able to read (sadly I had/have too little time to read all of them).

I was excited to see this thread, and with the emerging discussion I swayed first towards the one, then towards the other side (and then the pendulum stopped at this post ), slowly understanding more of what was going on. There are points in both sides’ argumentation which I can agree with (as can be seen from my “like”ing )

Anyway, thanks again: IMHO, your reaction is mindful and thoughtful, empathic, respectful, wise, and friendly. I wish I always could be that way.


And to explain my forementioned excitement …
I have three books by RJ:
- First Fundamentals
- Fighting Fundamentals
- [Something Joseki]

The last of these goes waaaay over my head, so it’s possible I won’t have touched it again when I sink into the grave, but in the other two I read. Sometimes for two weeks in a row, perhaps half an hour per day. Then again, I quit reading for a month or two, only to take it up again later.
I enjoy reading these books, I often have a … “feeling” … of … how to say … “satisfaction” or something when chewing through a paragraph or two, because … again that “feeling” … to have understood something. Being a tendencially rather emotion-driven person than ratio-driven, it’s often that, even after reading these very rational words, I cannot explain in words what it is that I believe to have understood, it’s kind of a LEGO world in my head, like I’d have to dance the explanation of a piece of music (as somebody wiser than me once said).
Therefore … I have a “feeling” that these books are quite good, but the only arguments I have for this are … vague feelings. And a 13k’s feelings are not worth a lot, right? And therefore I’m excited to read what a much stronger person who has actually read those books might have to say about them, a person who is openminded and not full of prejudice.


Ah, and BTW, there is a Turkish proverb I appreciate: “Learn what your teacher teaches, not what he lives!”.


Cordially,

Tom

p.s.: Yes, I really edited this post to add a comma.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Ich danke Ihnen sehr!


Besides...

ratio-driven

It is the first time for me to see the word 'ratio' used as the meaning 'reason'. Except the OED, which I am too lazy to go all the way deep in the library and look up, the other dictionaries, which I can happily view online, do not define 'ratio' as 'reason'; it is defined as 'a number representing a comparison between two things' or 'the relative magnitudes of two quantities', which is quite familiar. By skimming the etymology notes, 'ratio' seems to be able to mean 'reason' in Latin, thereby forming English words such as 'ratiocinate' or 'rational'.

What is your opinion concerning this matter? Is it acceptable to say 'ratio-driven' or 'driven by ratio' in order to mean 'ratiocinative'?

_________________
Wait, please.

In German I’d reply with “Kannst ruhig Du zu mir sagen! ” you to use the informal “Du” rather than the formal “Sie” (in this case: “Dir” instead of “Ihnen”). I’ve often envied the English-speaking world that they just have “you”.

Uhm well, while I began speaking English at age of four, it is not my native language, and sometimes I just don’t “find” the correct words, like in this case.

And yes, “reason” is what I meant, thank you I guess I unconsciously resorted to my school Latin to create the emotio/ratio contrast.

And I think in English “driven by reason” is much better than “driven by ratio” b/c “ratio” is more used for … (uhm, words again) … for example relationships/rate/proportion between different measures, sizes, correct?

Greetings, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?