brain sizes: Einstein's and women's and miscegenation

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Sep 4 10:59:21 EST 2002


"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oogd9.9500$jG2.714355 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> John Knight wrote in message
> >kp, it's generally a waste of time to respond to people who don't
> have
> >enough respect for their own thoughts that they don't even check
> their
> >spelling and grammar before they post to a public forum.
>
> Only if one elevates 'spilling' above readily-discernable
> information-content, eh?
>
> The rest of my 'style' is, mostly, correlated to that one 'test'.
>
> Basically, since "language" is 'just' a nervous-system interface, and
> 'thought' occurs in a much-larger way, I work to use 'language' that
> more-'friendly' to 'thought'.
>
> When I use single-quotes, it indicates "tthink the larger thing".
>
> 'course, I've been discussing the larger-stuff' in
> bionet.neuroscience for years, and you've cross-posted into the midst
> of that larger discussion.
>
> There's an 'easy' solution.
>
> Stop cross-posting into bionet.neuroscience where I do my work in
> Neuroscience.
>
> The 'difficult' solution is to receive the Neuroscience and do the
> work inherent in understanding it.
>
> It's up to you, but if you don't want the understanding, the easy
> thing is to stop cross-posting into bionet.neuroscience, no.
>
> Yup.
>
> k. p. collins


There's no understanding if you can't make yourself clear, k. p.  And if you
keep missing words, putting quotation marks where they don't belong,
misspelling words, and making other grammatical errors, nobody can be
certain of what you're writing.

This isn't an attempt to make you look stupid (though that may be a
possibility)--it's only an attempt to communicate with you clearly.

For example, you wrote:

> Basically, since "language" is 'just' a nervous-system interface, and
> 'thought' occurs in a much-larger way, I work to use 'language' that
> more-'friendly' to 'thought'.

How's anyone to know what you meant by:  'language' that more-'friendly' to
'thought'.

Did you mean to say:  'language' that [is] more-'friendly' to 'thought'?  Or
was there some other cryptic meaning here?  Did you leave out "is" on
purpose, or by accident? Do the quote marks around these words mean
something?  Is the key to the omission of "is" these quote marks?

It takes a long time to decipher such writing, and when you think you have
it right, the writer still may have meant something entirely different.

If we need to keep guessing at these things, how can we communicate with
you?  If they're just mistakes, why don't you take more time to review your
writing before you post these mistakes?  It doesn't help your position, at
all.

John Knight









More information about the Neur-sci mailing list