Ok this will be a good thread.

the room is most important

Marco, the net is the circle. You know how to spell Krishnamurti; congrats, by that act, you are in the circle!

BTW, I'm sure there is someone out there that, even though they know how to spell "Krishnamurti", will say you are purposely using big words to, well, you never really say... (volitional obfuscation, is that want you want to say, but, for some reason, don't?). But, hold on a second, you understand the words here, but are saying the same thing as what some undoubtedly feel on your Krishnamurti-Ghibran name drop!

Hmmm, I wonder what that incongruency means?

People, when they know what a word means, do not recoil from it per se, but rather from its meaning. A common ploy is to attack the "big-ness" of a word when you are really not willing to engage on a conceptual level. This ploy assumes, in fact counts on, that there are other people out there, in the hinterlands, just waiting to crest the hill with pitchforks, that feel similarly but who have not said so. The rallying of people against "big" words - even though, incongruently, you understand them - is an inauthentic action to suppress the idea or meaning that the word or words denote (Stone the witch!).

Marco, I don't think anything has been "obfuscated" from you, either intentionally or not, but rather you are just having a little temper tantrum (don't blame the dog-feeling this week...) that you are not able to "win", and which I assume you are used to most of the time.

Close enough to the bone?

Ah Asa - you mistook my post as agressive and I regret to inform you that it was not intended that way. My apologies if it came off as being contentious. Your "welcome to the circle" was more the response I had expected as I was fully aware that, in posting what I did, I was most certainly spanking the monkey online. Ain't we all? Indeed the net IS the circle! Well put.

As far as "understanding" the BIG words, and your in-depth analasys of my conflicted motivations; In truth I am amused and delighted by yours and 6chac's verbal jousting, as much as I was amused by your criticisms above. Love to be challenged, entertained and 'enlightened' to the chi and the tao in such an unlikely forum.

On that note I clasp my hands together, close my eyes, and bow ever so slightly from the waste so as not to give either of you two master-fisherman access to my nether-regions, and back towards the door never taking my eyes from either of you!

All the best,

Marco

My sincere apologies, Marco. I completely screwed up. All I can say is that I will try not to make that mistake again.

6ch, beat me with a broom!

No sweat Asa! I was hoping the reference to Melville at the end might have clued you in to my intentions of 'oneness-in-wanking', but I can see it could be easily overlooked or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, as I said, I did enjoy your retort regardless. Loved the image of the "people out there, in the hinterlands, just waiting to crest the hill with pitchforks" ...had me laughing out loud! You are a gifted writer! Hope you put that gift to some good use. I always cross-reference folks I enjoy (or sometimes don't particularly enjoy..in your case it is the former) with their answers from the past to get a better point of reference. I must say, I really enjoyed your responses on a thread titled "TUBES Do It -- Transistors Don't. I have never read that particular position so eloquently and articulately posited as you did in that thread. I just happen to agree completely and that contributes to my appreciation of your mastery of the word.

You can still have 6chac beat you with a broom if you like, but don't do it on my account!

Regards,

Marco