The Correct Use Of Criticism


I am a one man army.

I have no editor. I have not staff. I have limited time, and no resources.

I do my best to do what I do.

Unfortunately, I am a horrific speller. It’s just one of those things. I would have paid more attention in English if I thought I’d be using it one day (an ode to the public school system, by the way). When I research, think, and put this grandiose puzzle together, I do not think in correct grammar. I think in logic and reason, mixed with all unlimited possibilities, in a non-linear spectrum.

And so, as I transform my thoughts into written words, those words sometimes get misspelled. And sometimes they come out of my mouth in less than a proper grammatical fashion. And what I have found is that, for those who go out of their way to point out my flaws in spelling, they invariably fail to receive the message being portrayed by those misspelled words while being focused solely on the very misspelled or misspoken word. And this, I say, is a sad, sad irony; to be so ensnared by the rules of language that the language is lost on the soul.

While I have tried my darnedest as of late to be attentive to these errors, I am only human, and I can only learn by doing. And no doubt, mistakes will continue in my future works.

In my latest flub, I mispelled the very subject of my research: spelling “commingled” as “cummingled”. This is a horrible mistake, of course. And it was certainly worthy of criticism.

But the consequences of this mistake were quite brilliant, only because the correct form of criticism was used by several of my readers, though certainly not all of them! After several messages telling me I misspelled the word, I quickly fixed the problem. But as I was also open to learning from my mistake… and thankfully, some criticizers were willing to teach… this turned out to be a wonderfully informative mistake that I am quite happy to have made.

I just wanted to share with you one of those correct forms of criticism used, with much respect for the efforts put forth by this fellow seeker of knowledge. I hope he keeps up his efforts, and keeps correcting and teaching me in the future.

This is important stuff, concerning etymology (the study of words)…

Now, please learn from my mistakes:

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, October 9th, 2011

Leave a comment

8 Comments

  1. heroay

     /  October 11, 2011

    Clint, first of all, i have to congratulate you for the magnificent research and postings you have on your blog. i have been spreading the word, especially on the STRAWMAN-CAFR-A4V, which are dynamite against the criminal machine fooling, robbing, and even killing us all.

    As for mis-spelling, so what? We all do, just because we type fast, don’t have our readers on, don’t use the speller with our word processor, or plain coz we are lazy! SO What? As you say, it’s the pie, not the trimmings (didn’t you say that??) that makes the bulk (no, you didn’t) of the message.

    But i must say something about this video. i couldn’t watch 10% of it. i skipped and skipped til i got to the END. Yee-hah! Please, don’t much pay attention to this stuff, nor alarm your readers with something so petty. Matter of fact, i was unaware of that word! Often when i forward emails i correct any typos i notice. Simple solution to simple situations.

    Thanks, i may need your advise sometime soon, related to the STRAWMAN and the corrupt law-jerks polluting the ‘legal’, though unlawful (unconstitutional) American system.

    h.

    Reply
  2. mel

     /  October 13, 2011

    spelling is a living spirit.. words have not always been …spelled… the way we ..spell.. words today. besides, rules of spelling are suspect anyway! they make NO sense! write away..and don’t worry about how we cast a ..spell.. on words my friend!!

    Reply
  3. Dear h.

    Remember, it’s the things we do not understand that brings our actions into error. The video was meant to communicate the idea of words as a control mechanism. I accept your stance in this matter, and respect it. You speak of an accepted for value process. You obviously understand some law concepts and realize that these concepts are outside of the understanding of the general public mindset. Your interest in law has compelled you to research this subject further. As such, you can fairly easily see how I could research language and symbolism- and you should then agree that there is also a hidden understanding of these things as a result.
    The video wasn’t meant as “criticism” in any way. The intent was to share a deeper understanding of word use , relating to the subjects of law and commerce. It’s not about the misspelling either. It’s the actual meaning of the word “commingled” and how damn interesting the words are and how they relate to primary concepts of the human psyche, or “principles.”
    I never would have thought I would be interested in law. But I became very much so interested in the subject. The same goes for commerce, finance, education, history, psychology and propaganda, and of course symbolism and language. All of these system will lead you back to a source. The more systems you learn, the better you can find certainty of what they are and how they really relate to you.

    If you think the “rabbit hole” is deep, you haven’t even reached the edge of it yet. There is so much to understand, that we can all agree that many lives could be spent attempting to learn all things. And still there would be work to do.

    Don’t be put “off” by ideas of etymology so quickly. The result of learning about law leads you inevitably to word meanings and learning latin, at least some of the words. I know so little and constantly look up words and meanings to connect them. I wish to learn what I do not know. You comments will even allow me to learn from my own mistakes to construct better films that don’t give the impression of criticism as this one may have. Thanks for giving me 10% of your time, that’s a lot more than most people would!
    -William Shaw
    AKA ZeusEnergy

    Reply
    • Again, this guy did it right. Many people go to the end of my long-winded videos too, or press stop before the big reveal.

      This information is never going to appeal to the masses, and I am convinced that it will always be the few who make positive change for the many… even the ones who fast-forward when they should be listening.

      -Clint-

      Reply
  4. SEAN C ALLY

     /  November 2, 2011

    Hey Clint,how it going with you? If and when you are struck with momentary doubt if you have done or are doing enough. As your friend in Broooklyn,I want to tell you ,in my humble opinion.You have acomplished,achieved,revealed,unveiled,outed,exposed,outlined,underlined and succeded in attempt to illuminate a complex and complicated range of interconnected systems of logic and derrivative intellectual disciplines that has taken two hundred plus years and millions of crown agents,bar attorners from the inns of court within the “Square Mile”;City of London employing various types of occult word magic as “The Word of Art” to effectively “Hoodwink” and enslave all the worlds people.I think of them as “Knights Templar,Jedi,darkside Word and Codesmiths. “Clint vs The City”.You have made a nobel mark,Sir ,It will remembered.The fact of your willingness to openly confront yourself and accept criticism speaks volumes about your character and the high degree of integrity as standard by which you hold your self accountable.In the Marine corps there is the saying “Walking the talk”. Which I feel and think you practice.
    As a passing thought, the role of the “Critic” has been on my mind as a tool of “GateKeeping”.what it is used for contrasted by what it does not acknowledge as worthy of criticism.Read what this grad student blogs about his experiences on the topic:http://meerachandra.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-critic-in-me-who-cant-spell-criticism/
    I thought it was amuseing and shed light on how the discipline of thought is disconnected from the reality that informs our lives directly.
    Lastly;I want to help you. I must admitt openly that I am not as smart as you ,so I do not think I could offer any real talent. I have been tryng to master the US Code and the UCC for the past two years,because I understand it are the true-defacto law of the land.Painfully,it is over my head.
    If you were interested: I could use advice on the matter and prehaps in the present future you could give me a tittle to reserch to help the blog.
    Which would be helping me also ;As a regular reader of it.
    I respectfully offer these thoughts for further concideration.
    Sincerly S.C.Ally.

    Reply
    • In a word… thanks.

      US CODE is many dozens of volumes that equate to over 100 feet of bookshelf space. So if you master that in a lifetime, let me know how you did it!

      But if you want to really get down to the gritty, I think the “Statutory” -vs- “Prima Facie” is the key to everything. Over 50% of US CODE is Prima Facie. No consent, no law.

      Here’s a project for you… I’d like to see somebody write up a letter that states that because Homeland Security is an Executive Branch, and by default prima facie, I do not consent to being recorded, wiretapped, traced, or other forms of digital rape. Worded correctly, and with a fee schedule attached, and with millions of people signing it and sending it in with a 20 day mandatory return response required, we could create something similar to the “no-call list” for advertisers.

      We can call it the “no-spy list”.

      How about that?

      Reply
  5. SEAN C ALLY

     /  November 6, 2011

    hello clint.I accept the challenge offered to me, with pride. I have no experience or frame of reference to guide me in approaching the form and suppoting substance required to make the case. I think I have a grasp of the basics of a contract-offer and acceptance paradigm. Affidavit as truth. Colorable law, which I believe is the form of private contract law we are governed by;Full disclosure and the lack there of , is not relevant to the adhesion obligation of a contract.I wonder if “Rebutting the Presumption” of the defacto Democracy and useing the UCC 1-308 ” Without Prejudice ” reservation of rights as the core of the document may be sufficient in it’s simple and direct approach.. I am just thinking out loude(sp?).I have read about fee schedule penelties from the sovereign Freemen.I will get back to you when I have cobbled together a working draft for your comments.
    Until then-thanks.
    Sincerly S.C.Ally

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: