|
Posted by Warm Worm on January 12, 2008, 4:28 pm
"Don"
> "Warm Worm"
>> Sure, good research includes cross-referencing from reliable, valid
>> sources.
>
> You're real good at that aren't you Richard?
In a way, that's up to you. :)
>> "cross-reference
>>
>> Function:
>> transitive verb
>> 1 : to supply with cross-references <cross-reference a book>
>> 2 : to research, verify, or organize by means of cross-references
>> <cross-reference information>
>> cross-ref·er·ence
>> Function:
>> noun
>> : a notation or direction at one place (as in a book or filing system) to
>> pertinent information at another place"
>> [edited]
>> -- Merriam Webster Online
>>
>> OTOH, peculiar online dialogue, especially with those of a particular
>> style and/or apparent level of knowlege, who periodically sink into fits
>> of derogation on, ultimately or arguably, the "wrong" forums, may do well
>> to consider themselves indulged to get even a Wikipedia cite, much less
>> an unspoken plonk.
>
> Distraction is your middle name.
You might want to support that contention, otherwise I'll be tempted to view
it as a deliberate attempt at distraction on your part (not that it wouldn't
be the first time.) ;)
> Its not the number but rather the intensity of the content.
> Pretty deep.
> Its the sort of material that you have to read just about every single
> word twice to make sure you're getting it right.
> Kinda like an autocad user manual. heh
Like AutoCAD, it's one thing to talk about something, but yet another to
actually learn it and use it with competence-- assuming it's worth learning.
Also, I imagine that some have taken ACAD beyond its original intent, so,
while competence is important, so is synthesis, which seems to transcend
competence, or is the difference between being knowledgeable and being wise.
As I said;
>> I await your wise enlightenment with bated breath.
Happy reading.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap