From: James Rogers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 11:17:33 MST
On 1/27/02 2:16 PM, "Robert J. Bradbury" <email@example.com> wrote:
> with regard to Eugene's comments. Most of the time he gets my vote
> as the most obscure, condensed poster on the list (of course I can't
> view myself clearly -- the recent exchange with Louis suggests that
> I could very well fall into that swamp myself). I am generally
> left looking at his comments questioning whether I really understand
> them -- and most of the time I think our relative knowledge bases are
> pretty similar -- which makes my confusion sometimes even stranger.
> I would write it off to cultural differences but I of all people on
> the list have at least some overlap with Eugene's cultural background.
> So the source of this remains a mystery to me. So viewing Eugene's
> comments as an enigma wrapped inside a riddle boxed within a puzzle
> is not a new situation.
I understand Eugene perfectly when he posts. He just posts with an
extremely high signal-to-noise ratio and context compression that most
people aren't used to. Though if you are not familiar with the topic he is
talking about, you will almost certainly be lost without spending quite a
bit of time on Google.
A lot of the apparent compression when Eugene writes is caused by the
assumption of a high degree of shared context. If you share much of the
context that he is using, most of what he writes is comes through very
clearly. If you have insufficient context for what he writes, you'll
probably be confused. I personally kind of enjoy the extreme efficiency of
information transmission that is his style. But then, I understand what he
is talking about most of the time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:36 MST