Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:08:51 GMT

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Fields wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:36:33 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rubbish. Removal of two words does it.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> It'll take a little more than that... :-)
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "One of the principle understandings with the theory, is the
>>> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^
>>> principal outcomes of [np]
>>
>> We already addressed the "principle" one. I disagree with your
>> "outcomes" suggestion. "Understandings" is much better in my view. I
>> *meant* what I said. The theory gives *understandings* to what is
>> going on, not outcomes. In fact, it is understandings to the
>> outcomes. This why "outcomes" is wrong.
>>
>
> Understandings are agreements of principle between two parties.

Yes, thats one, of many.

They
> are nothing to do with understanding a theory.

This makes no sense to me.

>
>>>
>>>> explanations of why the behavior of men and women are fundamentally
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
>>> explanation
>>
>> Nope. There are many explanations, not one.
>> is
>
> Then don't introduce them by saying "One of the principal
> understandings is..."

So, like this makes the text incomprehensible?

>>
>>>
>>>> have no apparent biological evolutionary advantage?"
>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>> [delete]
>>
>> Not at all. Again, I truly *meant* what I said. This *specifically*
>> addresses the fact that it often seems that there is no biological
>> evolutionary advantage, but when examined closely, there may well
>> be. I am not making a claim that some conduct has no advantage, I am
>> claiming that at first glance it seems that way, but the initial
>> view is wrong. That is way "apparent" is there.
>>
>
> You miss the point. You say "much of it appear to have no apparent
> biological evolutionary advantage...". Having said "appear" [sic], the
> word "apparent" becomes redundant.

I'll give you that one. Oh shame on me.. its that flow of current issue
again...

>
>> So, it looks like you only caught a spelling error.
>>
>> Kevin Aylward
>
> Would you like a critical dissection of even your first paragraph?

You can correct it all if you wish.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.