He is "flappy,"--I think I'll appropriate that word from you, with your permission, in the sense that he sometimes "flutters ineffectively" when he talks.
I'm beginning to think we miscommunicated somewhere. You seem to be describing physical behaviors. I've never seen him speak. I don't know whether he's physically flappy or not. I pictured him flappy on the basis of his sometimes flappy writing, not actual arm movement. Not having ever seen him that I could recall, I just searched Google images and found him to have hair, which my mental image, er, omitted, and a few fewer years than expected.
Professors and op-ed writers are supposed to make tight, rational, and well organized arguments in their essays. I deduct credibility points when they don't. I don't think there's anything faulty about that. If you do, I'll listen to your arguments.
As for "flappy," help yourself to the word if it's useful to you.
I'm generally, as you know, in the agree spot on the floor; but I've certainly disagreed.
We have two different constructs in play here. One of them is agree/disagree. I don't have a sense of how often I've agreed or disagreed with him because I don't read him in that context. My construct is credibility when he speaks from authority. He is, after all, an expert in a subject in which I am not. My head has always struggled with macro economics. So I have to have some basis for evaluating what he says. If he sounds like he knows what he's talking about and what he says doesn't contradict anything I consider true, then I accept what he says. Flappy (or overwrought or agenda-driven) writing does not give the impression that the author knows what he is talking about. That doesn't mean that he doesn't, but it is not confidence building. |
