TR

On Nov 26, 1:23 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
Also true. However, I have a hard time believing that a certain clarity of
expression and minimally penetrating analysis are out of reach for most due
to a lack of native ability.

It is hard to believe; but quite possibly true nonetheless. I tell
ya, I thought grad students in Architecture would have some native
ability to do basic mathematics; but I was wrong about that too. :-)


On the other hand, maybe what I assume to be your position is right. Maybe
only you, me, and a small handful of others in this assemblage are capable
of grasping anything as abstruse and convoluted as what we're discussing
here.

Oddly enough, it appears to cut both ways. Write in simple, easy to
understand prose; and you're apt to be misinterpreted. Write with
precision and vocabulary, and you're tagged as a pompous windbag.
I'll not necessarily include myself in your "handful", but I believe
to you be correct in that assessment.

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:23 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Also true. However, I have a hard time believing that a certain clarity of
expression and minimally penetrating analysis are out of reach for most due
to a lack of native ability.


It is hard to believe; but quite possibly true nonetheless. I tell
ya, I thought grad students in Architecture would have some native
ability to do basic mathematics; but I was wrong about that too. :-)



On the other hand, maybe what I assume to be your position is right. Maybe
only you, me, and a small handful of others in this assemblage are capable
of grasping anything as abstruse and convoluted as what we're discussing
here.


Oddly enough, it appears to cut both ways. Write in simple, easy to
understand prose; and you're apt to be misinterpreted. Write with
precision and vocabulary, and you're tagged as a pompous windbag.
I'll not necessarily include myself in your "handful", but I believe
to you be correct in that assessment.

Joe F.

You two should be careful not to break your arms patting yourselves on
the back.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Nov 26, 1:46 pm, rw wrote:
You two should be careful not to break your arms patting yourselves on
the back.

Still, it's a nice respite from folks kicking each other in the balls,
eh?

Joe F.

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 1:23 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
Also true. However, I have a hard time believing that a certain clarity
of
expression and minimally penetrating analysis are out of reach for most
due
to a lack of native ability.

It is hard to believe; but quite possibly true nonetheless. I tell
ya, I thought grad students in Architecture would have some native
ability to do basic mathematics; but I was wrong about that too. :-)

Robert Heinlein (speaking through one of his tediously god-like Nietzschean
characters) once said something like; anyone incapable of coping with
mathematics cannot be considered fully human. I tend to adhere strongly to
the opposing view; anyone who CAN cope with mathematics is suspect. In
either case, Heinlein, having thus demonstrated his own superiority in a
manner so subtle that no one here would ever have noticed his diabolical
cleverness, would have fit right in.

On the other hand, maybe what I assume to be your position is right.
Maybe
only you, me, and a small handful of others in this assemblage are
capable
of grasping anything as abstruse and convoluted as what we're discussing
here.

Oddly enough, it appears to cut both ways. Write in simple, easy to
understand prose; and you're apt to be misinterpreted.

Tell me about it!

Write with
precision and vocabulary, and you're tagged as a pompous windbag.

An eventuality not without substantial corroborating precedents.

I'll not necessarily include myself in your "handful",

Ah, you do o.k.........for an effete pointy-headed easterner.

but I believe
to you be correct in that assessment.

Well then, for God's sake don't tell them.....or we're toast!

Wolfgang

"rw" wrote in message
...
rb608 wrote:
On Nov 26, 1:23 pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Also true. However, I have a hard time believing that a certain clarity
of
expression and minimally penetrating analysis are out of reach for most
due
to a lack of native ability.


It is hard to believe; but quite possibly true nonetheless. I tell
ya, I thought grad students in Architecture would have some native
ability to do basic mathematics; but I was wrong about that too. :-)



On the other hand, maybe what I assume to be your position is right.
Maybe
only you, me, and a small handful of others in this assemblage are
capable
of grasping anything as abstruse and convoluted as what we're discussing
here.


Oddly enough, it appears to cut both ways. Write in simple, easy to
understand prose; and you're apt to be misinterpreted. Write with
precision and vocabulary, and you're tagged as a pompous windbag.
I'll not necessarily include myself in your "handful", but I believe
to you be correct in that assessment.

Joe F.

You two should be careful not to break your arms patting yourselves on the
back.

See, that's what we like about you.......you don't learn.

Moron.

Wolfgang
do we have any other eager flagellants in the house today?

Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
...


You two should be careful not to break your arms patting yourselves on the
back.


See, that's what we like about you.......you don't learn.

Moron.


I nominate you as the best typist in ROFF. (BJ Connor is the worst.)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
...


You two should be careful not to break your arms patting yourselves on
the back.


See, that's what we like about you.......you don't learn.

Moron.


I nominate you as the best typist in ROFF. (BJ Connor is the worst.)

Nomination for any distinction, coming as this one does from ROFF's
perennial Slow Learner award winner, simultaneously elevates the spirit
while dashing any fond hope of ever setting a meaningful record.

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:18:41 -0500, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:11:26 -0500, daytripper
wrote:
as I haven't seen anything below 87 octane in decades.

Go west, DT. g At high altitudes, at least in WY, MT and UT, 85 octane is
pretty common.

Really? I guess that could make some sense, with the lower oxygen content, but
I didn't find any high altitude exceptions to the latest CAA section governing
automotive fuels...

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa211.txt

/daytripper

Having missed it when it first appeared, I climbed to the top of
this thread to check out the original TR. It reads:

Unfortunately the trip to the Baltic did not materialise, as the guy
who was supposed to be driving us got sick. Unfortunate, but that´s
how it goes.

TL
MC

Figures.

- JR

wrote:
On 26-Nov-2007, rb608 wrote:

IMHO, you'd be better sticking to your resolve...

...I liked it better when they were friends with each
other as well; but that's out of my control and none of my
business. It's also none of yours.

snip
It is my biz when I see Mike Ken and Dave attack ea other on
post after post - just wasting space and my time if I read
them.

Hint: DON'T!

Who is in charge of the clue bat these days, anyway?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj