I listened to it (thanks mikewarot for the warning about the volume), and at some point two of you discuss something I agree with that I haven’t seen noted befo

I listened to it (thanks mikewarot for the warning about the volume), and at some point two of you discuss something I agree with that I haven’t seen noted before when talking about Doug Engelbart: > [... 1:17:32] Joe is writing down all of the things that you’re saying describing the system, and then he says that “it represents the clumsy phrasing and illogical progression of thought so typical of extemporaneous speech” [https://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html#3b5a https://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html#3b5a] which A: is what Jimmy and I are doing right now, B: is what Doug Engelbart’s writing reads like anyways. His writing reads like clumsy and illogical progressions of extemporaneous speech, except that it’s like, worked to within an inch of its life. It is so overwrought, and yet at the same time clumsy and illogical, so that... you know... grrrr! > [... 1:18:14] Doug is a bad writer, I don’t like Doug’s writing, I’ll say that, I have not enjoyed reading his writing. I enjoyed his fan fiction better than I enjoyed his technical manuals, it’s just not a pleasure to read. And it made me wonder, [...] did he feel the disconnect in quality between, like, Bush’s writing and his own writing? Did he feel like the quality of his writing needed to be formed into this very unappealing mold because of the context he was working in? > [... 1:20:42] I do kind of agree with you, his writing is very awkward, right? It is hard to kind of get at the ideas that are in here, and you know, maybe there is something to it where he is... this is clearly, some of this is an intentional stylistic choice, right? [...] he wanted to write in this way for some particular reason or other, I think.