Good academic writing is clear, consistent and concise. It should not be condescending or confusing. Obviously, our reactions to David's writing style and content vary widely. I found myself impressed with what he had to say... at first. On further exposure, it began to grate on me. Why did he take so long to make what seems to be a simple point?
The point of David's posts, as far as I could stand to read them, is to emphasize the importance of making a commitment to training. One's practice should not be subject to whim or superficial, shifting emotions.
So far, so good. Then came post #28, in which he called Paige stuck, immature, and reactive. Sure, she called him "robotic" first, but I believe that was her way of saying that he had not been clear in his earlier statements. Then David wrote:
It's that simple - and it only gets complex when you are stuck, resistant to self-transformation (the real kind), and/or unable and unwilling to recognize what you are for fear of realizing what you are not.
I object to the implication that real self-transformation can only
come about through committed training (as defined by David -- what do you mean by committed training, David?), and that Paige's not-practicing is based on fear and insecurity. To me, that is a constricted view of the situation, based on a rigid world-view. Self-transformation can come about in many ways, and often the effects of our previous hard work come to light in a period of rest and reflection.