Re: specialization momentum
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
"g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d9qdav$qm6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> much snip
> > PiP wrote:
> > But that is enough criticism (and enough SM). Have a nice day.
>
> much snip
>
> Let me respond to just the parenthetical phrase "(and enough SM)."
>
> Are you saying that the conceptual construct I would wish to share,
> and for which I was trying to lay little more than a first stone in
> seeking to establish a single term is something you have had enough
> of?
[snip]
>
> Not being sure if that is the intent, let me pose it as a question. Is
> that what you meant by it?
It was a double entendre and something of a joke. I'm sure Peter can
explain it to you. (Please don't take that as a slur on your
intelligence (nor should Peter imagine a slur here)). I am a little
surprised you didn't "get it". But my explaining it to you would
just be a little too far "over the top".
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: specialization momentum
- From: g
- Re: specialization momentum
- References:
- Re: specialization momentum
- From: g
- Re: specialization momentum
- Prev by Date: Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
- Next by Date: Re: specialization momentum
- Previous by thread: Re: specialization momentum
- Next by thread: Re: specialization momentum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|