/lit/ - Literature

>>21969757
>When challenged with this, instead of expressing his ideas with greater clarity, you became defensive and attempted to shift the onus onto my own lack of understanding. This is the exact deflection that was predicted.
You still have not explained or pointed to what was incomprehensible about the paper. That is, you made
(a) a blanket statement and said it applies to his paper, but
(b) have made zero attempt to actually justify this statement.
When people do things like this, yes, the responses they receive will usually be "predictable". For example, you can't go into a thread dedicated to serious discussion of an author's work, pronounce the author's work "incomprehensible" and refuse to elaborate, then generously receive a 3000-word summary of said author's work explaining why it's not incomprehensible. Whenever one makes a statement about a work, one will usually be expected to justify the statement with something in order to garner a serious or lengthy response. This phenomenon did not come into existence with the introduction of the CTMU. Just like how I'm "predictably" not going to get a summary of Hegel's work by barging into a Hegel thread and saying "shit's gibberish bro", you can indeed "predict" that no one is going to explain or attempt to explain the entire theory to you when you state that the words on the paper fulfill the criteria of being "unclear", "incomprehensible", or some synonym thereof, but repeatedly fail to point out the words in question.

Several excerpts have literally been posted right here in the thread you yourself are posting in. If something is unclear, point it out, period.