wrote in message ...
[spit]

In article ,
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
"Morituri-Max" wrote in message
...
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many "workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source.

Nor does it mean that there is a single source.. You are basing a
premise on a
very weak foundation.

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?

genial?

I think he intends the word to be an adverb form of genius and
using it as an adjective.

And they developed it to create a whole field; each one contribuing
an aspect. And the field in a way is complete. But also, is there a
hierarchy of ideas in their ideas?

..no, merely a common desire to learn and advance our understanding of
how the
universe works.

That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

No. There are plenty of examples of scientists on completely different
continents coming up with the same breakthrough in science at about the
same
time.. then it is a matter of who publishes first.. after which they
sometimes
collaborate on refining their ideas.

Depends on the idea. Obvious ideas will be anticipated. Genial ones
belong to a single individual and may never be discovered again. You
have to refine your conception of knowledge. Mine is a tree.

We have been telling you that you are wrong considering it to
be a tree. If you superimpose a web connecting all nodes of
your tree, you will take a first step of understanding.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

You mean a semantic net? But reason proceeds step by step, like in
sylogisms, so there is a tree. Think of course 101, where you learn
superficially, and then course 303 where you learn *some* of the same
things but in deepness. Say, introduction to economics and then
macroeconomics, and then central bank policies and then open market
operations, etc. There is an implied tree, though admittedly there is
an enmeshed web. Like in a very net with thinh threads and then some
rather rigid threads that form an inner structure with the form of a
tree...

In article ,
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
wrote in message
...
[spit]

In article ,
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
"Morituri-Max" wrote in message
...
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many
"workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source.

Nor does it mean that there is a single source.. You are basing a
premise on a
very weak foundation.

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?

genial?

I think he intends the word to be an adverb form of genius and
using it as an adjective.

And they developed it to create a whole field; each one contribuing
an aspect. And the field in a way is complete. But also, is there a
hierarchy of ideas in their ideas?

..no, merely a common desire to learn and advance our understanding
of
how the
universe works.

That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

No. There are plenty of examples of scientists on completely
different
continents coming up with the same breakthrough in science at about
the
same
time.. then it is a matter of who publishes first.. after which they
sometimes
collaborate on refining their ideas.

Depends on the idea. Obvious ideas will be anticipated. Genial ones
belong to a single individual and may never be discovered again. You
have to refine your conception of knowledge. Mine is a tree.

We have been telling you that you are wrong considering it to
be a tree. If you superimpose a web connecting all nodes of
your tree, you will take a first step of understanding.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

You mean a semantic net?

No. I mean a "work that has to be done before the genius can
do the thing that will give the genius its label" net.
Try reading or watching some of the stuff that Burke produced.
I would recommend _Connections_ but not _Connections 3_. That
will give you a taste of how progress in arts, science, industry
and general knowledge happened. That's how it will happen in
the future.


..But reason proceeds step by step, like in
sylogisms, so there is a tree. Think of course 101, where you learn
superficially, and then course 303 where you learn *some* of the same
things but in deepness. Say, introduction to economics and then
macroeconomics, and then central bank policies and then open market
operations, etc. There is an implied tree, though admittedly there is
an enmeshed web.

That is only the _result_ of previous work; what you see in school
is a distillation of all efforts into what finally was made to
succeed. Even the presentation of this information has gone
through an evolution. Text book writers and instructors
changed how stuff was taught based on what worked the best.

.. Like in a very net with thinh threads and then some
rather rigid threads that form an inner structure with the form of a
tree...

However, your structure doesn't have the shortcuts from the
leaves to roots. What you see and saw in texts was all of the
shortcuts that worked. You aren't noticing the shortcuts that
didn't work because they have been cut out of the cirricula.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Morituri-Max wrote:
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.

Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.


/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Morituri-Max wrote:

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.


Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

So, one might think from context, might have been "general".

Nope. I considered that word and rejected based on the context. :-)
We must think differently.



I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.

Try looking at some of "Fabrizio"'s other recent postings.

It is possible that the kid is a kook. The subject matter
interests me and I'm dealing with an aspect of it in another
newsgroup in trying to solve a problem we have.

Now, I accept that it certainly is possible that the OP is
unreasonable. Personal attacks are not my method of arguing.
Personal attacks were simply not allowed when we did our
arguing at work; it's a waste of time and does nothing towards
solving nor resolving the disagreement.

****ing on the use of a word and ignoring the issue isn't
production and can be viewed as intentionally counterproductive.
Now, I interpreted your post as an attempt to be intentionally
counterproductive. The probability of my interpretation being
wrong is 95%.


/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article , wrote:
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Morituri-Max wrote:

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.


Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

So, one might think from context, might have been "general".

Nope. I considered that word and rejected based on the context. :-)
We must think differently.



I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.

Try looking at some of "Fabrizio"'s other recent postings.

It is possible that the kid is a kook. The subject matter
interests me and I'm dealing with an aspect of it in another
newsgroup in trying to solve a problem we have.

Now, I accept that it certainly is possible that the OP is
unreasonable. Personal attacks are not my method of arguing.
Personal attacks were simply not allowed when we did our
arguing at work; it's a waste of time and does nothing towards
solving nor resolving the disagreement.

****ing on the use of a word and ignoring the issue isn't
production and can be viewed as intentionally counterproductive.
Now, I interpreted your post as an attempt to be intentionally
counterproductive. The probability of my interpretation being
wrong is 95%.
^NOT^

****. I keep dropping my nots. NOT wrong =95%.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article ,
Gene wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:03:38 -0400, Tiny Human Ferret
wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Morituri-Max wrote:

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.


Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

So, one might think from context, might have been "general".


I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.

Try looking at some of "Fabrizio"'s other recent postings.


maybe he should have added "On heavy drugs as usual"


shrug I went through the exact same thinking when I started
wondering how things became the way they are. He's just starting
a little later than usual...but at least he's starting. Whether
he continues will determine if he's a crank.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

wrote:
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Morituri-Max wrote:

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.


Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

So, one might think from context, might have been "general".


I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.

Try looking at some of "Fabrizio"'s other recent postings.


--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:03:38 -0400, Tiny Human Ferret
wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

Morituri-Max wrote:

Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.


Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

So, one might think from context, might have been "general".


I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.

Try looking at some of "Fabrizio"'s other recent postings.


maybe he should have added "On heavy drugs as usual"

wrote:
In article , wrote:

In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

wrote:

In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:


Morituri-Max wrote:


Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

snips

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?


genial?

Never let an ESOL student use a spell checker or you will get really
silly output.

Actually, that might explain half of his posts.

Someone just started typing randomly and then ran it through the
spellchecker numerous times, randomly selecting words from the choices
lists presented when something ambiguous fails the spellcheck.


Have you used the assumption that English is not the poster's
first writing language? Genial is an obvious word to write
in this case.

So, one might think from context, might have been "general".

Nope. I considered that word and rejected based on the context. :-)
We must think differently.


I'm getting so ****ing fed up with people who judge the thinking
ability of other people just because they don't act and talk
like Hollywood superstars.

Try looking at some of "Fabrizio"'s other recent postings.

It is possible that the kid is a kook. The subject matter
interests me and I'm dealing with an aspect of it in another
newsgroup in trying to solve a problem we have.

Now, I accept that it certainly is possible that the OP is
unreasonable. Personal attacks are not my method of arguing.
Personal attacks were simply not allowed when we did our
arguing at work; it's a waste of time and does nothing towards
solving nor resolving the disagreement.

****ing on the use of a word and ignoring the issue isn't
production and can be viewed as intentionally counterproductive.
Now, I interpreted your post as an attempt to be intentionally
counterproductive. The probability of my interpretation being
wrong is 95%.

^NOT^

****. I keep dropping my nots. NOT wrong =95%.

Now, that's "genial" of you!

"Fabrizio" is having a lot of fun crossposting into a lot of places
where he is both annoying, and dominating local traffic in the newsgroup.

I have even sunk so low as to Meow him, but nobody else is helping and
he's decided to ignore it.

FWIW just because he's a kook doesn't mean he's unintelligent, or not
able to help you with your problem.





--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

In article ,
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
wrote:
In article , wrote:

snip

****. I keep dropping my nots. NOT wrong =95%.

Now, that's "genial" of you!

grin


"Fabrizio" is having a lot of fun crossposting into a lot of places
where he is both annoying, and dominating local traffic in the newsgroup.

The kid does have a lot of snot that needs wiping. Everybody goes
through that stage once; some never grow out of it.


I have even sunk so low as to Meow him, but nobody else is helping and
he's decided to ignore it.

Oh, is that what Meow'ing means.

FWIW just because he's a kook doesn't mean he's unintelligent, or not
able to help you with your problem.

Which is why I have him a break. If he's a crank, he'll abuse
the privilege and I'll spend my time elsewhere.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.