Ha…ha. Yes he can be “different” to read at first. I even jabbed that he sounded like Dave Draper on LSD.
But, once you weed through his own little semantic dictionary you find some really good info.
I’ve got his seminar DVD which is about 2.5 hours long. He hits major concepts pretty well and it goes along with his book well. What the one leaves a bit vague the other clarifies.
I think the biggest thing with Scott is that he has his own terminology that, once interpreted, begins to make sense. Then you can see his concepts for what they are.
Long story short, he is hard to interpret at first, but if you stick with it and begin to insert terms and concepts that you already know into his dialogue then you can groove on his writing.
Now as for writing style, I do think that he is guilty of taking 3 lefts to make a right. He is of the opinion that the reader must “come up” to the level of the article in question. I disagree, within reason of course. Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler (thank you, Albert).
What good is it to understand something, with the intent to teach, if you don’t frame the information in common vernacular or at least begin with some rudimentary definitions. Not dumbing down, just point blank clarity. To me that is a sign of both expertise and the ability to teach. Good teachers make difficult concepts easier to grasp. Scott struggles here a bit. But again, once you get it, he is a wealth of info and experience.