'Indirect' Causes [was Re: Can a haircut cause brain damage?]

neepy dsutherland7 at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 24 06:01:32 EST 2003


"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<IMYlb.12225$Ec1.1098300 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message
> news:jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hn7tw94.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca...
> | On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:48:14 GMT, KP_PC wrote:
> |
> | >What the query under discussion entails is finding
> | >an example of a haircut causing brain damage
> | >=directly= - no intervening stuff.
> | >
> | >Fire up your "search engine" :-]
> |
> | I disagree. The OP didn't phrase his question
> | carefully enough, is all. Or else you're picking
> | nits for the sake of argument, which ill becomes
> | you.
> 
> I agree with you - on all counts.
> 
> I was actually reacting to the way another poster
> jumped Dag.
> 

OK, I accept I was a bit facetious in my reply (though it didn't seem
to bother Dag much); but that was just me reacting to the
ever-increasing number of posts I see asking questions that can be
easily answered by the poster running a search on the relevant terms. 
Am I the only person annoyed by this phenomenon?



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list