I sometimes have the feeling that each person reads ANKOS in a different manner; that is, it is almost like the work is a different book for each reader. For i

I sometimes have the feeling that each person reads ANKOS in a different manner; that is, it is almost like the work is a different book for each reader. For instance, there has been a lot of criticism of the work that nothing in it was particularly new or original, that he was just regurgitating a bunch of stuff that came before on the topic of CAs and similar. Yet, when I read it, I was exhausted by the fact (by my reading) that it seemed like on every page I read there was some reference made to this older work, that he was constantly re-iterating the idea that he was "standing on the shoulders" of other people's work... So how is it that I read it this way, while others read it as seemingly not having this detail? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I find the idea very fascinating (it reminds me about the whole gold/blue dress thing that went around a couple of years back, but I doubt the same thing is at work here).