Quote from piezoe:
...I've always thought that the ability to write or speak clearly about a topic was reliable evidence of an in depth understanding of the topic.
In college, some of my professors had an in depth understanding of the topics they were teaching but very few understood what they were writing and/or talking about. Instead, the professors had "teaching assistants" (TAs) that understood the topic along with having the job to explain (teach) to us what the professors couldn't do.
Al Brooks has some followers that understand him. Doesn't it make sense to learn from those that understand his methods instead of learning from Al Brooks via the analogy involving "teaching assistants" I gave above.
My point, I don't understand why so many complain about Al Brooks English when he has followers that have mastered his methods along with speaking/writing English very well (e.g. NoDoji) that are members of a dedicated forum to his methods...a forum that's free.
If I had you guys attitude in college...I would have dropped 60% of my classes because the professors didn't speak clearly while knowing I had access to those (e.g. teaching assistants, tutors and fellow students) that spoke clearly and understood the topic.
By the way, I recently saw a doctor (back specialist) about a back injury. I wasn't able to read what he wrote in my medical file that I had to take to a physical therapist. Does that imply the doctor does not have an in depth understanding of back problems.
P.S. I don't use Al Brooks methods nor have I read the books. Yet, I do know someone that speaks/writes excellent English and has an in depth understanding of Al Brooks methods.